tBMHii 


^mmm«"i 


# 

Q- 

•^ 

w 

^ 

_Q- 

« 

03 
CO 

*-N> 

;^ 

^              H3 

CL 

•I       ^ 

o 

^ 

^ 

C 

< 

:3 

^  : 

;zi 

E 

.-    «'  1 

O               M 

CTJ 

J?    .^    ^ 

«S      rt 

if) 

•i     ^     1 

-*^      ^ 

sJ 

Q       c^       ^ 

s*^ 

2 

O 

^ 

"S 

% 

c 

>i 

(U 

^ 

0) 

•#) 

CL 

■ 

EV   761    .A5   C4    : 

L842 

C.l 

chapin,  A.   B.   ' 

L808-: 

L858. 

A  view  of  the  < 

Drgan: 

Lzation 

and  order  of  1 

the  pj 

rimitive 

1 
1 

f^i^' 


/     ijt^^^  cy     ^^  cXy       w-J"  /Cf^^   y^^julLJ^^i 


/ 


'\ 


\  ^-'^^W  J 


:*•    ^a 


VIEW 


ORGANIZATION   AND    ORDER 


PRIMITIVE  CHURCH: 


CONTAINING 


A  SCRIPTURAL  PLAN  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH; 


HISTORICAL  OUTLINE    OF  THE    CHURCH  TO    THE    END  OF    THE 
SECOND  CENTURY  : 

TO  WHICH  IS  ADDED, 

THE    APOSTOLIC   SUCCESSION,  CONNECTING    IT   WITH  THE 
CHURCH  OF    THE  PRESENT  DAY. 


BY  REV.  A.  B.^CHAPIN,  M.  A. 

Mem.  Conn.  Acad.  Arts  and  Sciences  ;  Mem.  Conn.  Hist.  Soc. ;  Hon.  Mem.  R.  I.  Hist. 
Soc. ;  Hon.  Mem.  Hist.  Soc.  Penn. ;  Mem.  Yale  Nat.  Hist.  Soc. 


NEW  HAVEN: 
PUBLISHED  BY   HITCHCOCK  &  STAFFORD. 

1842. 


Entered, 

According  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1842,  by 

A.    B.    CHAPIN, 

In  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  Connecticut. 


HITCHCOCK  AND  j>TAFFOKD,  PIUNTERS. 


TO 

THE  RIGHT  REVEREND 

THOMAS  CHURCH  BROWNELL,  D.  D.  LL.  D. 

BISHOP     OF    CONNECTICUT, 
W O R T H Y    S U C C E S SOR 

OF 

SEA  BURY      AND      JARVIS, 

THIS  WORK 

IS  RESPECTFULLY  DEDICATED, 

IN  TOKEN 

OF  REGARD  FOR  HIS  OFFICE  AND  CHARACTER, 


BY   THE  AUTHOR. 


"  O  Almighty  God,  who  has  built  thy  Church  upon  the 
foundation  of  the  Apostles  and  Prophets,  Jesus  Christ  him- 
self being  the  head  Corner  Stone,  grant  that  all  thy  children 
may  be  so  joined  together  in  unity  of  spirit,  by  their  doctrine, 
that  we  may  be  made  an  holy  temple,  acceptable  unto  Thee, 
through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,    ^men." 


CONTENTS. 


Epistle  to  the  Reader — List  of  Authors  cited,  ...         -       9 

CHAPTER  I. 
Nature  of  the  question — same  illustrated. — Points  of  agreement,         -     17 

CHAPTER  n. 
Nature  of  evidence — rules  of  evidence,     ------     22 

CHAPTER  III. 
Mode  of  interpreting  Scripture — points  of  inquiry,     -         -         -         -     28 

CHAPTER  IV. 
Nature  of  the  Church — one  fold — one  body,  with  many  members,  but 
one  head — twofold  nature,  militant  and  triumphant,         -         -         -     30 

CHAPTER  V. 
Who  composed  the  Apostolic  Church  1 — Baptism — mode  of — Mean- 
ing of  bapto  and  baptizo,  in  Dictionaries — among  the  Greeks — in 
the  Bible. — Scripture  usage  and  construction,         -         -         -         -     42 

CHAPTER  VI. 
Scriptural  allusions  to  baptism,  Rom.  vi.  4 ;  Col.  ii.  12  ;  Acts  viii.  38  ; 
Mat.  iii.  16. — Usage  of  Primitive  Christians. — Barnabas,  Hermas, 
Justin,  TertuUian, 52 

CHAPTER  VII. 
Subjects  of  baptism — Scripture  account  of, 69 


6  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

Subjects    of  baptism — Testimony   of  Fathers    on — Hermas,    Justin, 
Irenaeus,  Tertullian,     --- 76 

CHAPTER  IX. 
Incidental   proof— Practice    of  Oriental  Churches — Armenian,   Syro- 
Jaeobite,  Coptic,  Abyssinian,    Syro-Chaldean,   Greek. — Incidental 
proof  from  Celtic  and  Saxon  langfuages, 83 

CHAPTER  X. 
Requisites   of  baptism. — Creeds — from   Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  Origen, 
Cyprian,    Gregory   Thaumaturgus,   Lucian,    Cyril — the  Church  of 
Alexandria,  Antioch,   Rome,  the  Apostolical  Constitutions,  Nice, 
Constantinople, -        -        -        -91 

CHAPTER  XI. 
Members  of  the  Church  ; — powers — duties. — Liturgies — evidence 
from  Scripture,  from  the  early  writers,  from  ancient  Liturgies — 
Liturgj'-  of  the  Church  of  Antioch,  of  Cesarea,  Constantinople, 
Alexandria,  Ephesus,  Gall,  Rome,  Africa,  Spain,  Britain,  Milan — 
Agreement  of  Liturgies,  Baptismal  Liturgies,  necessity  of  forms. — 
Other  powers  and  duties. — Mutual  watch,  discipline,     -         -         -     98 

CHAPTER  XII. 
Officers  of  the  Church, 141 

CHAPTER  XIII. 
Deacons — were  officers  and  ministers  of  the  Church — qualifications, 
mode  of  making,  powers  and  duties,      --,,-.  142 

CHAPTER  XIV. 
Presbyter-bishops — names  in  the  Primitive  Church — whether  called 
the  same  by  the  early  writers — officers  and  ministers,  qualifications, 
mode  of  making,  powders  and  duties,      -,,.-.  150 

CHAPTER  XV. 
Apostles. — Apostolic  Commission — powers  granted  by  it,  recited  in  it, 
rule  of  construing  it.— Power  exercised  under  it — of  conferring 
Apostolic  authority — Titus,  Timothy,  Apostleship  of  Epaphroditus. 
— Characteristics  of  Apostleship. — Of  Ordination — Timothy,  Paul 
and  Barnabas — opinion  of  Jerome — practice  at  Alexandria — mistake 


CONTENTS.  7 

ofEiitychius — of  confirmation — ofdisscipline — of  Presbyters  and  Dea- 
cons, and  of  the  laity — of  presiding-  in  Councils. — One  Apostle  or 
Apostolic  Bishop  in  every  Church,  with  many  Presbyters  and  Dea- 
cons.— Crete,  Ephesus,  Philippi — seven  Churches  of  Asia — Colosse. 
— Testimony  of  antiquity,  the  testimony  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephe- 
sians. — Who  was  Bishop  of  Philippi  when  Polycarp  wrote  his 
Epistle  1 — Each  had  a  limited  jurisdiction,     -----  169 

CHAPTER  XVI. 
The  org-anization  of  the  Apostolic  Church  designed  to  be  permanent,    237 

CHAPTER  XVII. 
Ministry  considered  of  divine  appointment,  in  the  second  century,        -  243 

CHAPTER  XVIIT. 
Bishops  considered  as  successors  of  the  Apostles   in  the  government 
of  the  Churches,  in  the  second  century,         -----  246 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

Historical  characteristics  of  the  first  and  second  century,  with  a  brief 
view  of  ecclesiastical  technology  in  each,       -----  249 

CHAPTER  XX. 
One  Bishop  in  a  Church,  in  the  second  century,  but  many  inferior  clergy,  257 

CHAPTER  XXI. 

Independence  of  Bishops — Existence  of  Primates  or  Metropolitans,  -  260 

CHAPTER  XXII. 
Other  customs  relating  to  Bishops,  Presbyters  and  Deacons,  Laymen — 
Fasts — weekly,  annual. — Festivals— the  Resurrection,  Whitsunday, 
Christmas,  Epiphany,  Saints'  days.  Stated  hours  of  Prayer,  Vest- 
ments, Surplice,  Celibacy, 263 

CHAPTER  XXIII. 
Succession  of  Bishops — Primitive  principles  and  practice  in  regard 
to. — Succession  of  the  four  great  Patriarchal  Sees,  Rome,  Alex- 
andria, Antioch,  and  Jerusalem, 280 

CHAPTER  XXIV. 
Succession  of  the  Church  of  England — difference  between  Apostolic 


8  CONTENTS. 

succession  and  Episcopal  government. — English  succession  to  Ephe- 
sus — Bishops  of  Lyons,  of  Aries — Archbishops  of  Canterbury,  to 
Cranmer. — ^Consecrators  of  the  Archbishops  since  the  Reforma- 
tion.— Succession  from  Jerusalem — Archbishops  of  London — Pa- 
triarchs of  Jerusalem — Bishops  of  St.  David's,  of  LlandafT— Arch- 
bishops of  York, 285 

CHAPTER  XXV. 
List  of  Scottish  succession — succession  of  the  American  Church. — 
Archbishops  of  Armagh, 332 

CHAPTER  XXVI. 
Succession  of  Church  of  Rome,  with  the  list  of  Bishops,  -         -         -  345 

CHAPTER  XXVn. 
AUedged  breaks  in  the  Apostolic  succession. — Saxon  Church  in  the 
days   of  Aidan    and  Finnan. — Pretended  excommunication  of  the 
English  Church, 355 

CHAPTER  XXVIII. 
Independence  of  British,  Saxon,  and  of  the  Norman  Churches,  of  the 
Romish. — Anglo-Norman  Churchmen,  _         .         .         .         .  359 

CHAPTER  XXIX. 
The  English  Reformation  canonical — the  act  of  both  clergy  and  laity. — 
Romish    schism   in    England. — AUedged    Presbyterianism    of   the 
English  Reformers,       -.--.---.  381 

CHAPTER  XXX. 
Unity  of  the  Church. — Christianity  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles — in  the 
second  century — in  the  fifth  centui^. — Number  of  Christians  in  the 
fifth  century, 397 

Appendix, 405 


EPISTLE   TO   THE   READER. 


No  apology  need  be  offered  at  any  time,  for  an  inquiry  into 
the  subject  of  this  voknne  :  for,  next  in  importance  to  that  of 
personal  holiness,  is  the  question,  How  shall  that  Gospel, 
which  has  produced  this  holiness  in  us,  be  best  preserved  and 
perpetuated,  that  it  may  produce  the  like  holiness  in  generations 
yet  to  come?  Nor  is  this  a  duty  to  be  made  out  by  inference 
alone,  for  we  are  expressly  commanded,  to  "  walk  about  Zion, 
to  go  round  about  her ;  to  tell  the  towers  thereof ;  to  mark 
well  her  bulwarks,  to  consider  her  palaces  ;  that  we  may  tell 
it  to  generations  following."  (Ps.  xlviii.  12,  13.)  And  that 
the  Church  which  the  inspired  Apostles,  by  the  direction  of 
the  Saviour,  and  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  es- 
tablished in  the  world,  will  be  more  likely  to  preserve  and 
perpetuate  the  truth,  than  any  other  form  of  organization,  must 
be  so  self-evident  to  him  who  has  any  just  appreciation  of  the 
nature  and  design  of  the  Gospel,  that  no  argument  can  be 
necessary  to  prove  it.  But  though  no  apology  need  be  made 
for  considering  this  subject,  the  reasons  for  presenting  the 
public  with  a  new  work  upon  a  topic  that  has  been  so  fully 
and  so  ably  discussed,  may  not  be  uninteresting. 

The  substance  of  this  work  was  written  several  years 
since,  under  the  following  circumstances.  The  author  was 
born  and  educated  in  the  bosom  of  the  Congregational  Church  ; 


10  EPISTLE  TO   THE   READER. 

and  it  was  not  until  he  had  entered  upon  the  duties  of  a  pro- 
fessional life,  that  the  subject  of  the  organization  and  order 
of  the  Church  attracted  his  attention.  He  then  resolved  to 
examine  the  question  thoroughly,  according  to  the  soundest 
principles  of  legal  evidence,  and  to  draw  his  conclusions  as 
rigidly  as  he  would  from  books  of  law,  not  dreaming  of  the 
possibility  of  its  producing  a  change  in  his  own  views  on  the 
subject.  For  this  purpose  he  read  the  New  Testament 
through,  with  all  the  care  and  attention  of  which  he  was 
capable,  and  marked  every  passage  that  seemed  to  him  to 
have  any  bearing  upon  the  organization  or  order  of  the  Apos- 
tolic Church.  These  he  then  classified  under  their  appropriate 
heads,  and  arranged  them  according  to  their  several  subor- 
dinate topics,  upon  principles  detailed  in  the  work  itself.  The 
classification  thus  made,  forms  the  Scriptural  evidence  con- 
tained in  this  volume,  precisely  as  it  was  drawn  out,  except 
on  the  single  topic  of  Baptism,  not  only  before  the  author 
entered  the  Ministry,  but  before  he  had  even  conformed  to  the 
Episcopal  Church.  His  conclusions,  therefore,  are  to  be  re- 
garded as  those  of  a  layman,  who,  up  to  the  time  of  compiling 
the  evidence  embodied  in  this  work,  had  no  partialities  in 
favor  of  Episcopacy  ;  but  whose  prejudices,  partialities,  and 
supposed  interests,  were  all  in  opposition  to  it.  In  this  exam- 
ination, it  was  the  design  of  the  author,  to  bring  together  all 
the  Scriptural  evidence  ;  and  thus  to  develop,  A  Scriptural 
Draught  of  the  Apostolic  Church.  Hence  he  spent  no  time 
in  discussing  the  peculiarities  of  any  existing  denomination 
of  Christians,  nor  has  he  made  any  allusion  to  any  of  their 
principles  or  practices,  except  as  they  fell  necessarily  within 
the  scope  of  his  inquiry.  He  has  thus  avoided  controversy 
with  all  preceding  writers,  and  with  all  existing  sects. 

To  the  Scriptural  evidence,  thus  drawn  out,  the  author  has 
added,  A  brief  Historical  view  of  the  Church,  to  the  end  of 
the  second  century.     On  this  head,  he  has  endeavored  to  ex- 


EPISTLE   TO   THE   READER.  11 

amine  and  detail  all  the  ev/^ewce,  afforded  by  the  extant  writings 
of  the  Primitive  Christians,  within  that  period.  Indeed,  it  has 
been  his  design,  under  both  heads,  to  give  all  the  direct  evidence 
there  is  on  this  subject,  whatever  might  be  its  weight  ;•  and 
also,  to  add  such  presumptive  evidence  as  bears  directly  upon 
the  subject  under  consideration.  Consequently,  the  reader 
will  find  that  some  arguments  are  very  strong,  while  others 
are,  comparatively,  less  so.  The  author's  plan  required  him 
to  notice  all  the  arguments,  weak  or  strong ;  and  to  bring  for- 
ward all  the  evidence,  direct  or  indirect,  that  the  whole  might 
be  judged  of,  in  connection.  And  it  is  in  this  way,  he  asks 
that  it  may  be  judged.  To  enable  the  reader  to  do  this,  with 
more  clearness  and  certainty,  the  principles  upon  which  all 
investigations  of  this  kind  must  necessarily  be  conducted, 
have  been  stated  and  explained.  It  is  in  this  way  alone,  we 
can  ever  arrive  at  any  certain  conclusions  ;  and  it  is  in  this 
way  alone,  the  author  desires  his  book  may  be  read. 

Those,  therefore,  who  read  this  volume,  will  not  do  either 
the  subject  or  the  author  justice,  unless  the  whole  be  judged 
of  together.  No  well  grounded  inference  can  be  drawn  in 
any  other  way  ;  and  no  candid  man,  who  desires  to  come  to 
a  knowledge  of  the  truth,  "and  who  is  willing  to  follow  wher- 
ever that  leads,  should  ever  attempt  the  investigation  upon 
any  other  principles.  But  to  those  especially,  who  have  been 
educated  in  other  modes  of  thinking,  does  he  feel  bound  to 
say,  that  an  effort  should  be  made,  to  lay  aside  all  prejudice, 
and  to  rise  above  that  bias  of  opinion  and  feeling,  which  edu- 
cation, habit,  and  denominational  partialities  will  always  pro- 
duce. These  are  often  mistaken  for  argument,  even  by 
many  intelligent  and  well  meaning  persons ;  and  hence, 
should  be  carefully  guarded  against.  And  the  author  flatters 
himself,  that  every  one  may  read  this  book,  without  finding 
his  Church  defamed,  or  his  motives  impugned  ;  whatever  he 
may  think  of  the  conclusions  drawn. 


12  EPISTLE  TO  THE  READER. 

To  these  topics,  the  author  has  added  a  few  chapters  on 
other  subjects,  growing  out  of  the  preceding,  which  seemed 
necessary  to  give  application  to  the  principles  discussed,  and 
the  conclusions  drawn.  Without  these,  it  was  impossible  to 
connect  the  Church  of  the  present  day,  with  the  Church  in 
the  times  of  the  Apostles.  And  unless  this  was  done,  one 
great  end  of  our  inquiry  would  be  lost.  These  chapters,  the 
author  flatters  himself,  will  often  be  found  of  peculiar  service 
to  Churchmen,  under  a  great  variety  of  circumstances ;  and 
he  hopes  they  will  not  be  devoid  of  interest  to  others. 

Perhaps  the  author  ought  also  to  mention,  that  some  of  the 
topics  treated  of,  in  this  volume,  have  been  discussed  by  him, 
since  his  connection  with  the  public  press,  in  much  the  same 
manner  as  on  the  following  pages.  This  is  especially  the 
case  with  the  subject  of  Baptism  ;  and  it  has  been  a  source  of 
no  small  satisfaction  to  him,  that  these  discussions  have  been 
found  so  generally  acceptable,  and  so  entirely  conclusive,  that 
their  re-publication  has  been  repeatedly  called  for,  from  a 
great  variety  of  sources.  Several  other  points  of  diiference 
among  Christians,  have  been  discussed  with  those  who  dis- 
sent from  the  conclusions  drawn  in  this  book.  In  this  way 
the  author  has  bee  i  rendered  familiar  with  the  various  claims, 
interpretations,  and  expositions  of  opposing  parties,  and  been 
able  to  form  a  better  judgment  of  the  soundness  of  his  reason- 
ing. But  he  has  not  changed  any  thing  to  avoid  any  conclu- 
sion drawn  by  others,  unless  sound  and  fair  argument  seemed 
to  require  it.  And  then  he  has  done  so,  without  any  regard 
to  the  question  of  how  it  would  aftect  the  claims  of  any  sect, 
party,  or  Church.  His  object  has  been  to  make  a  full  and 
fair  view  of  all  the  evidence,  and  to  leave  the  intelligent  and 
candid  reader  to  draw  his  own  inferences,  and  to  make  his 
own  application. 

In  conclusion,  the  author  would  remark,  that  he  neither 
courts  nor  deprecates  criticism.     But  he  may  be  permitted  to 


EPISTLE   TO   THE   READER.  13 

say  to  those  who  differ  from  him,  that,  if  they  attempt  either 
to  review,  or  reply  to  him,  they  ought  to  show,  (1,)  that  the 
principles  he  has  proceeded  upon  are  unsound  ;  or,  (2,)  that 
he  has  departed  from  those  principles  in  the  investigation  ;  or, 
(3,)  that  the  mass  of  evidence  has  been  misrepresented  or  mis- 
applied. It  will  not  be  enough  for  them  to  show,  that  he  may 
have  been  mistaken  on  some  points,  even  could  that  be  done, 
if  the  principles  on  which  he  has  proceeded  are  sound.  Or, 
(4,)  they  ought  to  show  that  he  has  omitted  to  mention  other  im- 
portant proof,  sufficient  to  outweigh  all  the  evidence  adduced. 
Unless  one  of  these  four  points  can  be  shown,  the  conclusions 
drawn  in  this  volume,  must  be  received  as  proved.  If  the 
author  has  failed  upon  any  one  of  these  points,  he  will  be 
much  obliged  to  those  who  will  point  it  out  to  him,  in  that 
spirit  of  kindness  and  charity,  with  which  this  work  is  pre- 
sented to  the  public.  Truth  has  in  some  instances  required 
the  author  to  state  facts  that  will  not  be  acceptable  to  all  ;  but 
he  has  endeavored  to  do  it  in  the  way  that  would  be  the  least 
offensive  to  such  brethren  as  dissent  from  him. 

In  order  to  put  it  into  the  power  of  every  one  who  desires 
to  test  the  accuracy  of  the  facts  stated  in  this  volume,  as  well 
as  the  soundness  of  the  conclusions  drawn  from  the  facts,  the 
author  has  given  full  and  careful  references  to  his  authorities, 
and,  as  far  as  possible,  to  the  original  authorities.  He  has 
thus  put  it  into  the  power  of  those  who  wish  to  subject  his 
argument  to  the  most  rigid  scrutiny,  with  the  least  possible 
labor,  while  at  the  same  time  it  furnishes  the  reader  with  a 
sort  of  guaranty,  that  the  facts  are  fairly  stated,  on  sufficient 
authority.  The  author  also  trusts,  that  in  addition  to  other 
advantages  which  may  be  derived  from  this  volume,  it  will  be 
found  a  general  index  to  the  authors  from  whom  all  facts  and 
arguments  on  this  subject  must  be  drawn. 

That  those  who  are  unwilling  to  lay  aside  the  prejudices  of 
early  education ;  or  who  are  not  resolute  enough  to  ask  un- 
2* 


14  EPISTLE  TO  THE  READER. 

hesitatingly,  "  What  is  truth  ?"  nor  bold  enough  to  dare  fear- 
lessly to  follow  it ;  or  who  are  unwilling  to  relinquish  the 
pride  of  opinion  or  the  interest  of  place  ;  that  those  will  be 
convinced,  is  not  expected.  But  it  is  hoped,  that  the  sincere 
inquirer  after  truth  will  find  essential  aid  in  this  volume  ;  and 
that  he  who  is  anxiously  seeking  to  know,  What  is  that  Church 
which  hath  been  declared  to  be  "  the  body  of  Christ  ?"  will  be 
helped  forward  in  his  investigation.  That  it  may  do  this ; 
and  also  tend  to  lead  "  those  who  profess  and  call  themselves 
Christians,  into  the  way  of  truth,  and  to  hold  the  faith  in  unity 
of  spirit,  in  the  bond  of  peace,  and  in  righteousness  of  life," — 
until  the  whole  of  God's  elect  shall  be  "  knit  together  in  one 
communion  and  felloM^ship,  in  the  mystical  body  of  his  Son  our 
Lord,"  is  the  hearty  prayer  of 

THE  AUTHOR. 


CHRONOLOGICAL    LIST 


Fathers  of  the  first  and  second  centuries,  quoted  in  this  work. 


A.  D. 

83.  Clement,  Bishop  of  Rome.     He  wrote  an  Epistle  to  the 

Church  at  Corinth. 
90.  Barnabas.     He  wrote  one  Epistle,  which  has  been  pre- 
served. 
107.  Ignatius,  Bishop  of  Antioch.     He  wrote  seven  Epistles, 
to  seven  different  Churches. 

107.  PoLYCARP,  Bishop  of  Smyrna.  He  wrote  one  Epistle 
to  the  Philippians. 

108.  Martyrdom  of  the  blessed  Martyr  Ignatius  Theophorus, 
written  by  eye-witnesses  to  his  death. 

135.  Papias,  Bishop  of  Hierapolis.  He  wrote  a  work  in  five 
books,  called  the  "  Interpretation  of  our  Lord's  Declara- 
tions ;''^  only  fragments  remain. 

150.  Hermas.  He  wrote  a  work  containing  four  Visions^ 
twelve  Commands^  and  ten  Similitudes. 

150.  Justin  Martyr.  He  wrote  two  Defenses  of  Christian- 
ity, and  a  Dialogue  with  Trypho  the  Jew. 

160.  Hegessipus.  He  wrote  Ecclesiastical  Memoirs,  from 
the  Crucifixion  to  his  own  time  ;  only  fragments  remain. 

168.  Circular  Epistle  of  the  Church  of  Smyrna^  upon  the  mar- 
tyrdom of  the  holy  Poly  carp. 

170.  DiONYsius,  Bishop  of  Corinth.  He  wrote  several  Epis- 
tles, which  remain  only  in  fragments. 

175.  Iren.^us,  Bishop  of  Lyons,  in  Gaul.     He  wrote  a  work 


16  LIST   OF  FATHERS   QUOTED   IN   THIS  WORK. 

in  five  books,  entitled,  The  refutation  and  overthrow  of  False 
Doctrine  :  which  exist  only  in  a  Latin  translation,  and  is 
quoted  under  the  name  of  Irenceus  against  Heresy.  Also, 
an  Epistle  to  Florinus ;  besides  many  other  works,  that 
have  perished. 

185.  Clement,  a  Presbyter  of  Alexandria.  He  wrote  a  large 
number  of  works.  The  one  called  Stromata,  has  been  pre- 
served, and  fragments  of  some  others. 

195.  PoLYCRATES,  Bishop  of  Ephesus.  He  wrote  some 
Epistles,  which  exist  only  in  fragments. 

200.  Tertullian,  a  Presbyter  of  Carthage,  whose  works  are 
voluminous. 

To  these  we  may  add  the  following,  to  whose  works  refer- 
ence has  been  made,  but  without  regarding  them  as  conclu- 
sive authority  concerning  that  early  period. 

230.  Origen. 

250.  Cyprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage. 

250.  DiONYsius,  Bishop  of  Alexandria. 

325.  Eusebius  Pamphilius,  Bishop  of  Cesarea. 

330.  Athanasius,  Bishop  of  Alexandria. 

350.  Cyril,  Bishop  of  Jerusalem. 

370.  Basil,  Bishop  of  Cesarea. 

370.  Jerome. 

370.  Gregory,  Nazianzen. 

370.  Gregory,  Nyssa. 

374.  Ambrose,  Bishop  of  Milan. 

396.  AuGUSTiN,  Bishop  of  Hippo. 

398.  Chrysostom,  Bishop  of  Constantinople. 

412.  Isodore,  of  Pelusium. 

423.  Theodoret,  Bishop  of  Cyprus. 

435.  Socrates. 

440.    SOZOMEN. 

590.  Gregory,  Bishop  of  Rome. 
595.  Isodore,  of  Spain. 


VIEW 


PRIMITIVE     CHURCH 


CHAPTER  I. 

STATE  OF  THE  QUESTION. 

From  the  days  of  the  Lutheran  Reformation  to  the  present 
tmie,  the  question,  What  was  the  organization  and  order  of 
the  Apostolic    Church  ?*  has   excited   much  discussion   and 

*  The  word  Church,  is  used  in  place  of  the  Greek  Ecdesia,  which  de- 
notes an  assembly,  legally  and  properly  convened,  whether  common  or 
religious,  signifying  either  the  place  where  the  assembly  meets,  or  the 
persons  assembled.  "  Ecelesia"  was  early  adopted  into  the  Latin,  but  em- 
ployed by  the  fathers  of  that  Church  to  denote  the  assembly,  rather  than 
the  place  of  assembling.  Our  English  word  Church,  seems  to  have  been 
derived  from  the  Greek  curiacon, — "  pertaining  to  the  Lord,"  signifying, 
also,  "  a  Christian  temple," — apparently  through  the  old  Gothic.  It  was 
probably  introduced  into  Gothic  by  Ullilas,  Bishop  of  the  Moeso-Goths,  in 
the  fourth  century,  by  whom  the  New  Testament  was  translated  into  that 
language.  From  thence  it  has  spread  throughout  all  the  Teutonic  lan- 
guages:  Old  German,  chirihh;  German,  kirche ;  Dnich,  kerk ;  Scottish, 
fciVA;;  Anglo-Saxon,  circ,  and  cyric ;  Icelandic,  kyrkia  ;  Swedish,  kyrka  ; 
Danish,  kirke  ;  English,  Church.  It  is  also  found  in  the  Slavonic  languages : 
Russian,  tserkov ;  Bohemian,  cyrA;ew ;  Lusitanian,  zirkwa  ;  Dalmatian, 
czrikwa  ;  Polish,  koscid.  The  Portuguese  igreja,  seems  also  to  have 
been  derived  from  the  same  root. 


18  KIND  OF  EVIDENCE. 

interest  among  the  various  religious  denominations ;  each 
claiming  to  be  exclusively  patterned  after  -the  Apostolic 
tnodel.  Among  such  a  variety  of  opinions,  however,  it  is 
evident,  that  all  cannot  have  been  so  formed ;  but  this  unani- 
mous claim  of  an  Apostolic  sanction,  is  conclusive  evidence 
that  all  consider  it  of  great  importance.  A  large  proportion, 
indeed,  believe  the  Apostolic  practice  to  be  binding  on  all  suc- 
ceeding generations  ;  and  the  few  who  deny  its  obligation, 
show  by  their  constant  endeavors  to  prove  their  conformity 
to  that  model,  that  they  consider  its  sanction  very  desirable. 
Since  this  subject  is  deemed  by  Christians  to  be  one  of  such 
magnitude,  its  consideration  cannot  fail  to  be  both  interesting 
and  useful. 

This  examination,  it  should  be  remembered,  is  one  of  pure 
history,  and  is  to  be  considered  like  every  other  question  of 
that  nature.  Consequently,  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  the 
supposed  tendency  of  any  organization  ;  nor  any  thing  to  do 
with  existing  organizations,  any  further  than  to  compare  them 
with  the  results,  thus  obtained. 

In  this  examination,  there  are,  however,  two  distinct  kinds 
of  evidence,  wholly  independent  of  each  other,  and  both 
equally  relevant  ; — the  Scriptures,  and  the  writings  of  the 
primitive  Christians,  usually  referred  to,  by  the  appellation  of 
THE  Fathers.  The  writings  of  the  Fathers  are  equally  per- 
tinent testimony  with  the  Scriptures,  in  an  inquiry  into  the  or- 
ganization oi^  the  primitive  Church,  when  they  speak  of  facts 
within  their  own  knowledge,  provided  they  were  honest  men  ; 
and  that  they  are  considered  honest  by  all  Christendom,  is 
sufficiently  proved  by  the  fact,  that  all  Christians  have  agreed 
to  take  their  word,  as  to  what  constitutes  the  canon  of  Scrip- 
ture. But  there  are  some,  at  the  present  time,  who  deny  the 
relevancy  of  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers  ;  and  who  insist 
that  we  must  confine  ourselves  entirely  to  the  evidence  of 
Scripture,  in  attempting  to  determine  the  Constitution  of  the 


POINTS   TO   BE  PROVED.  19 

Apostolic  Church.  Out  of  respect,  therefore,  to  the  feelings 
of  those  who  entertain  this  opinion,  we  shall  confine  our  ex- 
amination entirely  to  such  points  as  may  be  made  out  by 
Scripture,  citing  the  Fathers  merely  in  confirmation  of  these, 
and  as  proof  of  what  was  the  Constitution  of  the  Church,  in  the 
age  immediately  succeeding  that  of  the  Apostles.  And  for 
the  same  reason,  we  shall  confine  ourselves  to  the  time  when, 
it  is  acknowledged  by  all,  that  the  Church  remained  uncor- 
rupt ;  that  is,  to  the  two  first  centuries.  The  full  object  of 
our  inquiry  is,  (1,)  to  ascertain,  What  is  the  Scriptural  account 
of  the  Apostolic  Church?  and,  (2,)  What  is  the  historical  ac- 
count of  the  primitive  Church,  to  the  end  of  the  second  century  ? 

Before  we  proceed  to  examine  the  evidence  in  the  case,  we 
must  acquaint  ourselves  with  three  things  :  (1,)  The  things  to 
be  proved ;  (2,)  The  manner  of  proving  them;  and,  (3,)  The 
testimony  by  which  they  are  to  be  proved.  But  in  every  subject 
which  men  discuss,  or  examine,  there  must  be  certain  things 
which  are  assumed,  or  agreed  upon,  by  all  parties.  These, 
like  the  axioms  in  mathematics,  are  the  starting  points  of  the 
argument.  Their  necessity  is  self-evident ;  for  if  men  do  not 
agree  upon  certain  first  principles,  they  cannot  reason  together 
at  all. 

One  of  the  points  thus  assumed,  or  agreed  upon  in  this  mat- 
ter, and  which  the  common  sense  of  every  person  must  ap- 
prove, is,  that  the  Apostolic  history,  as  contained  in  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  was  written  to  acquaint  us  with  the  fact,  that 
the  Gospel  was  preached,  and  Churches  were  formed ;  but  not 
to  detail  the  peculiarities  of  their  organization  ; — that  the 
Apostolic  Epistles  were  written  to  confirm  the  Churches  in 
the  faith  ;  but  not  to  give  them  a  platform  of  Church  organiza- 
tion and  order.  Hence,  we  are  obliged  to  infer,  as  we  know 
the  fact  to  be,  that  the  New  Testament  gives,  in  no  one  place, 
a  detailed  account  of  the  organization  and  order  of  the  Apos- 
tolic Church.     This  point  being  assumed,  it  is  necessary  to 


SJO  CASE  ILLUSTRATED. 

assume  another,  before  we  can  proceed  at  all  in  the  arg-ument ; 
and  that  is,  that  the  Apostolic  Churches,  when  fully  establish- 
ed, had  a  uniform  system  of  organization ;  and  that  the 
Apostles,  in  their  writings,  allude  to,  and  speak  of  that  form, 
with  sufficient  distinctness,  to  enable  us  to  determine  what  it 
was. 

It  will  be  seen  from  this,  that  the  scriptural  evidence  on 
this  subject,  is,  mainly,  of  that  indirect  kind,  which  will  ren- 
der some  portions  of  this  examination  rather  difficult.  The 
precise  nature  of  it  may  be  best  illustrated  by  an  example. 
We  will  suppose  a  man,  born  and  educated  in  one  of  the 
South  Sea  islands,  who  has  gTOwn  up  without  any  communi- 
cation with,  or  knowledge  of,  any  civilized  nation.  Put  into 
the  hands  of  such  a  man,  the  military  correspondence  of  Gene' 
ral  Washington,  during  the  American  Revolution,  and  require 
him,  from  that  alone,  to  determine  the  organization  of  the 
American  army  ;  and  you  would  certainly  impose  upon  him 
a  task  of  no  small  magnitude.  It  is  true,  he  would  find  letters 
to  and  from  the  officers  of  the  army,  with  numerous  accounts 
of  acts  performed  by  various  persons  ;  but  nowhere  would  he 
find  an  enumeration  of  the  various  ranks  and  grades  of  offi- 
cers ;  nowhere  a  distinct  account  of  the  power  and  duty  inci- 
dent to  each  ;  and  for  a  very  satisfactory  reason,  that  both  the 
writers  of  the  letters,  and  the  persons  to  whom  they  were 
written,  were  perfectly  familiar  with  every  rank  and  grade, 
with  all  the  power  and  duty  of  every  office  and  officer  in  the 
army,  of  which  they  were  speaking. 

But  the  foregoing  supposition  does  not  present  a  parallel 
case  to  the  one  we  are  to  consider,  inasmuch  as  the  subject 
of  the  supposed  letters  is  the  same  with  the  question  to  be 
determined.  But  suppose  further,  that  instead  of  the  military 
correspondence,  this  man  should  receive  only  the  letters  writ- 
ten hy  Washington  to  such  familiar  friends,  during  the  same 
period,  as  had  left  the  army,  and  were  residing  in  a  remote 


XDa 


NATURE   OF   PROOF.  21 

art  of  the  country,  accompanied  by  a  few  proclamations,  issu- 
ea  by  the  General  to  the  army.  The  task  of  determining  the 
constitution  of  the  army,  would  now  be  doubly  difficult ;  and 
yet,  such  a  man,  under  such  circumstances,  would  be  situated 
very  much  as  we  are,  when  attempting  to  determine  the  entire 
Constitution  of  the  Apostolic  Church,  from  Scripture  alonCi. 
This  will  be  evident  upon  slight  reflection,  for  it  will  not  be 
believed  for  a  moment,  that  General  Washington,  when  wri- 
ting to  men  who  had  been  soldiers  or  officers  under  him,  and 
who  were  as  familiar  with  the  organization  of  the  army  as 
himself,  would  enter  into  a  detail  of  facts,  with  which  he 
knew  them  to  be  perfectly  conversant ;  nor  is  there  any  great- 
er reason  for  believing,  that  the  Apostles  would  give  a  detail- 
ed account  of  the  organization  and  order  of  the  Churches  they 
had  established,  when  writing  to  the  members  of  those  very 
Churches.  The  nature  of  the  evidence  in  the  two  cases  is, 
therefore,  similar  ;  and  what  would  be  proof  of  the  Constitu- 
tion of  the  American  army,  to  a  South  Sea  islander,  situated 
as  we  have  supposed,  must  be  proof  to  us  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  Apostolic  Church. 

Hence  the  necessity  of  ascertaining,  with  as  much  certain- 
ty as  possible,  the  precise  nature  of  the  evidence  to  be  consid- 
ered, that  we  may  be  able  to  confine  our  attention  wholly  to 
questions  of  history.  For  this  purpose,  we  shall  reduce  these 
fundamental  principles  to  the  shape  of  propositions,  that  we 
may  be  able  to  refer  to  them  without  difficulty. 

Propositions. — 1.  It  is  agreed,  then,  that  the  Churches 
planted  by  the  Apostles,  when  fully  established,  had  a  uniform 
system  of  organization. 

2.  That,  whatever  this  form  was,  it  must  have  been  tan- 
gible and  visible  ;  known  to  all  the  members  of  the  Churches  ; 
and,  therefore,  could  not  be  mistaken  or  forgotten. 

3.  For  this  reason,  the  Apostles  did  not  address  epistles 
to  the  Churches  in  relation  to  ecclesiastical  organization  ;  that 

3 


22  RULES  OF  EVIDENCE. 

being  a  subject  about  which  there  was  no  possibility  of  mis- 
take. But  they  did  address  Epistles  to  the  various  Churches 
on  matters  of  faith  and  doctrine,  which  not  being  thus  visible 
and  tangible,  but  depending  on  recollection  and  memory  for 
their  transmission,  M^ere  liable  to  be  forgotten  or  misremem- 
bered. 

4.  These  Epistles  contain  allusions  to  that  organization, 
sufficiently  distinct  to  enable  us  to  determine  what  it  was. 

5.  That  form  only  can  plead  the   authority  of  Apostolic 
sanction,  to  which  these  allusions  are  all  applicable. 


CHAPTER  II. 

RULES  OF  EVIDENCE. 

The  truth  of  the  propositions  contained  in  the  foregoing 
Chapter,  will  not  be  doubted  or  denied, 'by  those  who  give 
their  assent  to  the  correctness  of  the  view  we  have  taken  of 
the  subject,  and  the  nature  of  the  evidence  by  which  it  is  to 
be  determined.  Indeed,  it  is  only  by  supposing  them  true, 
that  the  subject  can  be  discussed  at  all ;  since,  if  the  organi- 
zation of  the  Apostolic  Churches  was  not  uniform,  all  inquiry 
concerning  it  is  useless  ;  for  unless  they  were  uniform,  we 
can  not  quote  an  Epistle  to  one  Church,  to  prove  what  was  the 
organization  of  another.  Hence,  unless  we  allow  this  uni- 
formity, the  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  would  be  no  evidence 
of  what  was  the  organization  of  the  Church  at  Ephesus.  And 
so  of  the  rest.  And  further  ;  if  the  Apostolic  writings  do  not 
allude  to  that  organization,  with  sufficient  distinctness  to  ena- 
ble us  to  determine  what  it  was,  all  attempts  to  ascertain  the 
fact  from  Scripture,  are  utterly  visionary. 

Having  ascertained  those  general  principles,  upon  which 


NATURE  OF  EVIDENCE.  23 

all  are  agreed,  and  which  must,  therefore,  form  the  basis  of 
all  argmnent  on  this  subject,  we  must  also  establish  some 
rules  of  evidence,  or  principles  of  interpretation,  which  will 
enable  us  to  give  to  each  circumstance  the  precise  force  it 
deserves. 

We  can  not,  perhaps,  better  illustrate  the  necessity  and  na- 
ture of  these  rules,  than  by  resuming  our  former  supposition. 
We  may  then  imagine  the  South  Sea  islander,  reading  the 
familiar  correspondence  of  Washington,  and  there  finding 
accounts  of  a  Major  General  commanding  two  or  more  Brig- 
adier Generals ;  a  Brigadier  General  commanding  two  or 
more  Colonels  ;  a  Colonel  commanding  two  or  more  Captains, 
and  so  down  to  privates.  The  most  natural,  and  the  only 
logical  inference  he  could  draw  from  these  accounts,  would 
be,  that  an  officer  commanding  two  or  more  other  officers,  was 
of  a  higher  rank  or  grade  than  those  over  whom  he  had  com- 
mand ;  and  therefore,  that  a  Major  General  ranked  higher 
than  a  Brigadier  General,  a  Brigadier  General  higher  than  a 
Colonel,  and  so  on.  By  a  careful  collation  and  comparison  of 
all  the  passages  in  which  the  various  officers  were  spoken  of, 
or  alluded  to,  he  might  be  able  to  determine  the  rank,  grade, 
and  duty  of  every  officer  in  the  army. 

But  the  man  would  need  some  rules  for  weighing  the  evi- 
dence contained  in  those  letters,  that  he  might  decide  correct- 
ly as  to  what  was  proof  oi  a  fact  in  reference  to  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  army.  Having  satisfied  himself,  that  the  person 
who  wrote  the  letters,  and  the  persons  to  whom  they  were 
written,  were  well  acquainted  with  its  organization,  and  that 
the  writer  was  an  honest  man,  he  would  at  once  conclude, 
that  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  state  facts,  or  allude  to 
things  which  did  not  exist ;  and  therefore,  that  the  bare  men- 
tion of  an  office,  officer,  custom,  or  regulation,  as  existing  in 
the  army,  and  forming  a  part  of  it,  was  conclusive  evidence  of 
its  existence.     He  would  also  find  things  of  this  kind  directly 


24  NATURE  OF  EVIDENCE. 

alluded  to,  when  not  expressly  mentioned  ;  and  indirect  allu- 
sions to  what  he  would  have  reason  to  suppose  formed  a  part 
of  the  same. 

Hence,  such  a  man  would  naturally  classify  his  proof  into 
express  mention  of  facts  in  reference  to  the  organization  of 
the  army,  into  direct  and  indirect  allusions  to  them.  The 
first  of  these  would  be  conclusive  evidence  of  the  fact  thus 
mentioned  ;  the  second,  or  direct  allusions,  would  be,  unless 
contradicted  or  explained,  proof  of  the  fact ;  and  the  third,  or 
indirect  allusions,  would  raise  a  presumption  of  the  existence 
of  the  fact  apparently  alluded  to,  liable  to  be  confirmed  or 
contradicted.  If,  however,  the  fact  apparently  alluded  to,  ac- 
tually existed  in  the  army,  it  never  could  be  contradicted  by 
the  correspondence  of  General  Washington. 

At  first,  too,  it  would  be  difficult  for  such  a  man  to  deter- 
mine, whether  a  thing  spoken  of  was  part  of  the  odinary  dis- 
cipline and  practice  of  the  army,  or  whether  it  was  some  pe- 
culiar and  extraordinary  service,  performed  by  special  com- 
mand at  that  time.  To  do  this,  however,  it  would  only  be 
necessary  for  him  to  bear  in  mind,  that  as  the  persons  to 
whom  these  letters  were  written,  M^ere  at  a  distance  from 
the  army,  and  were  only  acquainted  wuth  its  ordinary  duties 
and  discipline  ;  it  would  be  necessary  for  General  Wash- 
ington, when  speaking  of  any  thing  extraordinary  or  un- 
usual, to  mention  what  it  was,  and  to  tell  for  what  purpose  it 
was  ordered  ;  or  he  would  be  unintelligible  to  his  corres- 
pondent. If,  therefore,  he  found  a  distinct  statement  of  the 
performance  of  an  act,  unaccompanied  by  any  intimation  that 
it  was  something  unusual,  he  would  conclude  that  it  was  an 
ordinary  practice,  or  a  regulation  of  the  army.  Thus,  sup- 
pose he  should  find  Washington,  in  one  of  his  letters,  telling 
his  friend,  that  he  was  "  awoke  that  morning,  by  the  beating 
of  the  revelly ;"  and  in  another  place  should  say,  he  "  awoke 
at  daylight ;"  and  that  there  should  be  no  further  allusion  to 


NATURE  OF  EVIDENCE.  25 

the  "revelly"  in  all  the  letters,  our  South  Sea  islander  would 
necessarily  infer,  that  it  was  a  custom  or  regulation  of  the 
American  army  to  heat  the  revelly  at  daylight.  Again,  sup- 
pose that,  among  the  proclamations  submitted  to  the  examin- 
ation of  this  man,  he  should  find  one  addressed  to  a  particular 
branch  of  the  army,  in  which  mention  was  made  of  their  dis- 
orderly and  mutinous  conduct,  concluding  with  a  command, 
that  all  things  should  hereafter  be  done  accordiiig  to  rule  ;  the 
only  inference  would  be,  that  certain  rules  existed,  well 
known  to  the  persons  whom  he  addressed,  the  transgression 
of  which  had  made  them  obnoxious  to  the  charge  of  disor- 
derly conduct. 

All  this  is  most  emphatically  true,  in  reference  to  the 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  from  which  we  are  obliged  to  gather 
nearly  all  the  evidence  on  this  subject.  This  has  been  so 
clearly  and  forcibly  stated  by  Mr.  Locke,  in  his  Essay  for  the 
Understanding  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  in  reference  to  another 
point,  that  we  can  not  better  express  our  ideas,  than  by  copy- 
ing a  passage  from  him. 

"  The  nature  of  epistolary  writings  in  general,  disposes  the 
writer  to  pass  by  the  mentioning  many  things,  as  well  known 
to  him  to  whom  his  letter  is  addressed,  which  are  necessary 
to  be  laid  open  to  a  stranger,  to  make  him  comprehend  what 
is  said ;  and  it  not  seldom  falls  out,  that  a  well-penned  letter, 
which  is  very  easy  and  intelligible  to  the  receiver,  is  very 
obscure  to  a  stranger,  who  hardly  knows  what  to  make  of  it. 
The  matters  St.  Paul  writ  about,  were  certainly  things  well 
known  to  those  he  writ  to,  and  which  they  had  a  peculiar 
concern  in  ;  which  made  them  easily  apprehend  his  meaning, 
and  see  the  tendency  or  force  of  his  discourse.  But  we,  hav- 
ing now,  at  this  distance  of  time,  no  information  of  the  occa- 
sion of  his  writing,  little  or  no  knowledge  of  the  temper  and 
circumstances  those  were  in  he  writ  to,  but  what  is  to  be 
gathered  out  of  the  Epistles  themselves  ;  it  is  not  strange  that 
3* 


26  '       RULES  OF  EVIDENCE. 

many  things  in  them  lie  concealed  to  us,  which,  no  doubt, 
they  who  were  concerned  in  the  letter,  understood  at  first 
sight." 

It  can  not  be  necessary  for  us  to  pursue  the  subject  further ; 
for  every  reader  will  see  the  exact  parallelism  of  the  evidence 
to  be  relied  on  by  the  South  Sea  islander,  in  his  attempts  to 
discover  the  organization  of  the  American  army,  from  such 
materials,  and  that  to  be  employed  by  us,  in  attempting  to 
determine  what  is  the  Scriptural  Dra^ight  of  the  Apostolic 
Church.  The  evidence  is  of  the  same  general  nature  ;  the 
circumstances  under  which  it  was  written,  in  the  main,  analo- 
gous, and  the  difficulties  to  be  encountered  in  the  investiga- 
tion, are  exactly  similar. 

It  will,  however,  be  convenient  for  future  reference,  to  re- 
duce the  substance  of  the  foregoing  illustration  to  the  form  of 
propositions,  applicable  to  the  question  under  consideration 
alone.  We  shall  also  add  to  them  a  few,  which  grow  out  of 
the  nature  of  the  subject,  and  which  are  so  plain  and  obvious, 
as  to  require  no  argument  in  their  support ;  and  which  every 
writer  does,  in  effect,  assume,  in  any  similar  inquiry.  Those 
who  wish  to  see  this  point  in  its  strongest  light,  will  do  well 
to  compare  some  work  on  Biblical  Antiquities,  with  another 
on  Greek  or  Roman  Antiquities. 

Rules  of  Evidence. —  1.  The  references  made  in  Scrip- 
ture to  the  form  of  the  organization  of  the  Apostolic  Church, 
are  of  three  kinds  ;  positive  statements,  direct  allusions,  and 
indirect  allusions ;  each  possessing  a  different  degree  of  force. 

2.  A  jjositive  statement,  in  regard  to  any  office,  officer,  or 
regulation  in  the  Apostolic  Church,  as  forming  a  part  of  it ; 
is  conclusive  evidence  of  its  existence. 

.3.  A  direct  reference  to  any  office,  officer,  or  regulation  in 
the  Apostolic  Church,  as  forming  a  part  of  it,  is  prima  facie 
evidence,  that  is,  full  proof,  unless  contradicted  or  explained 
away,  of  its  existence. 


RULES  OF  EVIDENCE.  27 

4.  An  indirect  allusion  to  any  office,  officer,  or  regulation 
in  the  Apostolic  Church,  as  forming  a  part  of  it,  is  presump- 
tive evidence,  but  not  of  itself,  proof  oi  its  existence. 

5.  Evidence  of  an  inferior,  may  confirm,  but  can  not  con- 
tradict, that  of  a  higher  degree. 

6.  Several  presumptions,  arising  from  different  sources, 
and  tending  to  prove  the  same  thing,  are  sufficient  to  establish 
the  existence  of  a  fact,  unless  contradicted  by  evidence  of  a 
higher  degree. 

7.  No  name  designates  an  office  in  the  Church,  unless 
some  particular  power  be  assigned  to,  or  some  person  to 
whom  it  is  applied,  exercised  some  power,  or  performed  some 
duty  in  the  Church,  by  virtue  of  it. 

8.  The  nature  of  an  office  in  the  Apostolic  Church,  can 
not  be  learned  from  its  name,  but  must  be  determined  by  the 
nature  and  extent  of  the  power  ascribed  to  the  office  ;  or  ex- 
ercised by  the  officer  filling  the  office. 

9.  The  grade  or  rank  of  an  officer,  is  to  be  determined  by 
the  extent  of  power  appertaining  to  the  office,  or  exercised 
by  the  officer. 

10.  The  application  of  several  names  to  the  same  person, 
is  not  evidence  that  they  all  designate  the  same,  or  similar 
office. 

One  other  subject  deserves  notice  in  this  place  ;  the  rele- 
vancy of  the  testimony  of  primitive  writers  on  this  subject — 
the  reason  and  extent  of  it.  This  may  be  illustrated  by  an 
example.  Polycarp  of  Smyrna,  one  of  the  writers  we  shall 
quote,  was  the  disciple  of  St.  John.  He  must  have  known, 
therefore,  what  was  the  order  and  faith  of  the  Apostolic 
Churches.  Irenseus  of  Gaul,  who  flourished  from  A.  D.  175 
to  A.  D.  200,  was  the  disciple  and  pupil  of  Polycarp,  and  must 
have  known,  from  Polycarp,  what  was  the  faith  and  order  of  the 
Church,  in  the  time  of  the  Apostles  ;  andyro;7^  personal  obser- 
vation, what  was  the  faith  and  order  of  the  Church,  in  his 


28  MODE  OF  INTERPRETING  SCRIPTURE. 

own  day.  In  regard  to  the  latter — the  order  and  organization 
of  the  Church — it  was  impossible  he  could  be  mistaken.  It 
was  a  thing  of  public  notoriety,  tangible  and  visible  to  all,  and 
about  which,  there  could  be  no  dispute.  The  testimony  of 
Ireneeus,  therefore,  as  to  the  order  of  the  Church  in  his  own 
day,  is  conclusive  evidence  on  that  point ;  and  that  which  he 
received  from  Polycarp,  was  conclusive  on  the  same  point,  in 
his  day.  Ignatius,  another  writer  whose  writings  will  be 
employed  as  evidence,  was  also  the  disciple  of  St.  John,  and  a 
fellow  pupil  with  Polycarp.  These,  together  with  Clement 
of  Rome,  the  fellow  laborer  with  St.  Paul,  are  among  the 
principal  authorities,  to  which  we  shall  refer  in  our  inquiry. 


CHAPTER  III. 

MODE  OF  INTERPRETING  SCRIPTURE. 

We  are  now  ready  to  proceed  in  our  examination  ;  which 
will  be  done  by  a  most  rigid  application  of  the  principles  and 
rules  of  evidence  already  established.  It  must,  however, 
have  been  obvious  to  the  most  casual  reader  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, that  there  is  in  it,  not  only  a  dearth  of  facts,  in  refer- 
ence to  many  things  in  the  Constitution  of  the  Apostolic 
Church  ;  but  also,  that  in  some  cases  where  reference  seems 
to  have  been  made  to  it,  the  language  is  such  as  to  render  it 
somewhat  doubtful  to  what  the  Apostles  intended  to  refer. 
In  many  of  these  instances,  however,  much  of  the  ambiguity 
may  be  removed,  by  a  more  full  and  free  translation  of  the 
original.  But  as  this  often  involves  some  disputed  point,  it  is 
difficult  to  give  a  version  which  shall  satisfy  all  parties.  In- 
asmuch, however,  as  we  have  consented,  out  of  respect  to  the 
feelings  of  a  portion  of  our  brethren,  to  leave  out  of  consider- 


NEW  TRANSLATIONS.  29 

ation  much  important  testimony  on  the  subject,  that  might  be 
drawn  from  the  Fathers  of  the  third  and  fourth  centuries  ; 
for  the  same  reason,  and  to  avoid  even  the  appearance  of 
controversy,  we  will  consent  to  take  the  interpretation  of  one 
of  their  own  men,  in  every  instance  where  a  deviation  from 
the  common  version  is  made.  Or,  in  other  words,  in  every 
instance  in  this  examination,  where  we  find  occasion  to  pro- 
pose a  translation  different  from  the  standard  version,  we  shall 
make  use  of  the  "  Greek  and  English  Lexicon  of  the  New 
Testament,  by  Edward  Robinson,  D.  D.,  late  Professor  Ex- 
traordinary of  Sacred  Literature,  in  the  Theological  Semina- 
ry at  Andover,  Mass.  ;"  a  man  whose  acquaintance  with  the 
Greek,  and  with  all  that  has  been  written  in  Germany,  on  the 
peculiar  Greek  of  the  New  Testament,  (aside  from  the  inev- 
itable influence  of  the  prejudice  of  education  and  denomina- 
tional parlialities,)  qualify  him,  in  an  eminent  degree,  to  judge 
of  the  exact  meaning  of  the  language  of  the  New  Testament ; 
and  not  only  that,  but  we  shall  give  it  the  precise  meaning  he 
has  assigned  it,  in  that  particular  jylace,  unless  special  notice 
is  given  to  the  contrary.  If  any  have  a  right  to  complain  of 
this  course,  it  is  certainly  not  those  whose  notions  on  this 
subject  are  similar  to  Prof.  Robinson's  ;  and  if  such  persons 
dislike  the  conclusions  at  which  we  thus  arrive,  it  is  surely 
no  fault  of  ours. 

As  a  general  rule,  however,  Scripture  must  be  its  own  in- 
terpreter ;  and  no  reference  will  be  made  to  any  existing  form 
of  Ecclesiastical  organization,  unless  by  way  of  illustration  ; 
and  lest  this  should  oflend  some,  no  mention  will  be  made, 
except  of  that  organization  which  corresponds  with  the  con- 
clusions drawn.  Nor  can  any  appeal  to  human  opinions  be 
allowed,  except  to  determine  the  sense  of  words  and  phrases 
made  use  of  by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament.  Nor 
shall  we  appeal  to  the  Old  Testament,  as  authority  on  this 
subject,  except  in  those  cases  where  the  New  contains  some 


30  THE  CHURCH  ONE  FOLD 

reference  or  appeal  to  it ;  or  where  both  treat  in  common  of 
the  same  subject ;  as  is  the  case  in  regard  to  the  character  of 
our  Saviour,  or  where  the  writers  of  the  New,  have  used 
words  and  phrases  which  have  a  determinate  Ecclesiastical 
meaning  in  the  Old  Testament. 

Bearing  these  things  in  mind,  we  shall  now  proceed  to  in- 
quire, 

1 .  What  was  the  Apostolic  Church  ? 

2.  Who  composed  it  ? 

3.  What  were  the  powers  and  duties  of  its  members  ? 

4.  What  were  its  officers  ?  and, 

5.  What  were  the  qualifications  required  of,  and  the  power 
and  duty  belonging  to  each  ? 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  CHURCH  A  REGULARLY  ORGANIZED  SOCIETY. 

We  are  now  ready  to  inquire,  What  was  the  Apostolic 
Church  ? 

We  answer,  that  it  was  a  regularly  organized  society.  This 
plainly  appears  from  the  language  applied  to  it  in  Scripture. 

1 .  It  is  one  fold,  having  one  shepherd.  This  is  expressly 
declared  by  the  Great  Head  of  the  Church  himself,  (John  x. 
16  :)  "  Other  sheep  I  have,  which  are  not  of  this  [the  Jewish] 
fold  ;  them  also  I  must  bring,  and  there  shall  be  one  fold  and 
one  shepherd."  And  in  another  place,  (John  xvii.  21 — 23,) 
Christ  prayed  that  his  disciples  might  be  one,  "  even  as  he 
and  his  Father  were  one."  So  Paul,  in  his  Epistle  to  the 
saints  at  Rome,  assures  them,  that  though  many,  they  "  were 
one  body  in  Christ,"  (Rom.  xii.  5  ;)  and  he  proclaims  to  the 
Ephesians,  that  Christ  has  broken  down  the  wall  of  partition 


ONE  BODY MANY  MEMBERS 31 

between  Jew  and  Gentile,  and  "  has  made  both  one,"  (Eph. 
ii.  14  ;)  or,  as  in  1  Corinthians,  (xii.  13,)  were  "  baptized  into 
one  body;'  i.  e.  "  the  Church."  (Col.  i.  18.)  So  also  St.  Paul 
assures  the  Church  of  the  Romans,  that  they  are  a  wild  olive- 
tree,  grafted  into  the  root  of  that  true  olive,  which  before  had 
been  the  Jewish  Church.     (Rom.  xi.  13 — 24.) 

2.  It  is  one  hody^  having  one  head.  In  Ephesians,  (i.  22,) 
Christ  is  said  to  be  "  head  over  all  to  the  Church."  In  Colos- 
sians,  (i.  18,)  he  is  called  "  the  head  of  the  body — the  Church," 
and  in  Romans,  (xii.  4,)  the  Church  itself  is  called  "  one 
body."  So  in  1  Corinthians,  (xii.  13,)  it  is  said  that  Jews 
and  Gentiles  are  baptized  into  one  body,"  that  is,  into  the 
Church.     (Col.  i.  18.) 

3.  But  still  having  many  members.  This  is  expressly  as- 
serted in  Romans,  (xii.  4,)  "  We  are  many  members,  in  one 
BODY  ;"  and  also  in  1  Corinthians,  (xii.  12,)  "  For  the  body 
is  one,  and  hath  many  members,  and  all  the  members  of  that 
one  body  are  one  body."  And  again,  (xii.  20,)  "  Now  are 
they  many  members,  but  one  body." 

4.  The  members  having  various  ojffices.  Thus  St.  Paul  says 
to  the  Romans,  "  we  have  many  members  in  the  same  body, 
but  all  members  have  not  the  same  office."  (Rom.  xii.  4.) 
And  in  1  Corinthians,  (xii.  18,)  he  writes,  "  God  hath  set  the 
members  in  the  body,  as  it  pleased  him,"  every  one  to  per- 
form some  distinct  office,  or  appropriate  duty.  And  reasoning 
in  the  same  manner  in  reference  to  the  Church,  (comp.  1  Cor. 
i.  2  ;  xii.  12,  27,)  he  calls  the  Church  one  body,  in  which 
"  God  hath  set,  first,  Apostles  ;  secondarily.  Prophets  ;  thirdly, 
Teachers  ;  after  that,  miracles,"  &c.  (v.  28,  29.)  So  in  Ephe- 
sians, (iv.  11,  12,)  he  declares,  that  "he  gave  some  Apostles, 
and  some  Prophets,  and  some  Evangelists,  and  some  pastors 
and  teachers,  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the  work  of 
the  ministry,  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ ;"  i.  e,  "  the 
Church." 


32 


A  PERFECT  BODY. 


5.  But  having  "  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one  Lord  and  Father 
ofalir     (Eph.  iv.  5,  6.) 

The  common  practice  of  the  Apostles,  of  comparing  the 
Church  to  the  body,  is  so  full  of  meaning,  that  it  deserves  a 
careful  consideration.  If  the  Church  be  "  one  body,"  having 
"  one  head,"  "  with  many  members,"  the  members  having  "  va- 
rious offices,"  then  it  follows  that  it  is  a  perfect  body.  And  if 
a  perfect  body,  it  will  be  attended  by  the  following  particulars : 

(1.)  The  head  will  be  the  eye,  that  is,  the  overseer  of  the 
body.  This  follows,  both  from  the  analogy  of  the  Apostle's 
figure,  and  from  the  office  and  object  of  the  eye.  Hence  the 
duty  of  overseeing  can  not  be  anywhere  but  in  the  head. 

(2.)  The  head  will  be  the  ear  of  the  body.  And  if  the  ear, 
then  it  will  have  the  power  of  hearing,  and  consequently  of 
judging  all  matters  relative  to  the  wants  and  duties  of  the 
body. 

(3.)  The  head  will  be  the  mouth  of  the  body.  And  if  the 
mouth  of  the  body — the  Church — then  it  will  have  the  power 
of  speaking  on  behalf  and  in  the  name  of  the  Church. 

From  the  foregoing  it  follows,  that  in  every  Apostolic  Church 
there  was  a  head,  having  the  power  of  overseeing,  hearing, 
judging,  and  speaking,  for  and  in  behalf  of  the  Church.  No 
Church,  therefore,  can  be  formed  after  the  Apostolic  pattern, 
to  which  these  allusions  are  not  applicable,  or  which  has  not 
such  a  head,  having  these  powers,  and  performing  these  duties. 

(4.)  It  also  follows,  that  if  every  Church  must  have  such  a 
head,  then  there  can  be  no  such  thing  as  a  head  over  these 
heads.  Each  head  must  be  the  highest  authority,  on  earth, 
over  the  body.  Hence,  the  doctrine  taught  by  some,  that 
Christ  has  one  visible  head  on  earth,  over  all  Churches,  is 
opposed  to  the  opinion  of  St.  Paul,  and  can  not  therefore  be 
true. 

It  may  be  asked,  whether  the  Apostle's  language  necessa- 
rily supposes  any  head  of  the  Church  on  earth  ?     We  think  it 


NATURE   OF   THE   CHURCH.  33 

does,  clearly  so.  Thus  he  says,  (1  Cor.  xii,  12,)  "For  [or 
according^  as  the  body  is  one,  and  hath  many  members,  and 
all  the  members  of  that  one  body,  being  many,  are  one  body ; 
so  ALSO  {i.  e,  in  like  manner]  is  Christ  :"  by  which,  as  ap- 
pears from  the  same  chapter,  is  meant  the  body  of  Christ,  (v. 
27,)  which  in  Colossians  (i.  18)  he  calls  "  the  Church."  And 
again  he  says,  "  The  eye  can  not  say  unto  the  head,  I  have 
no  need  of  thee  ;  nor  again,  the  head  unto  the  foot,  I  have  no 
need  of  you."  (xii.  15 — 17.)  This  language  naturally,  if  not 
necessarily,  implies,  that  the  head  was  of  the  same  nature  as 
the  eye,  the  ear,  the  foot,  and  the  hand.  Hence,  although 
Christ  is  the  Great  Head  of  the  Church,  (Eph.  i.  22  ;  iv.  15  ; 
V.  23  ;  Col.  i.  18,)  and  "the  Bishop  of  our  souls,"  (1  Pet.  ii. 
25,)  still  he  hath  constituted  Bishops  to  be  visible  heads  of 
his  visible  Church,  to  act  as  his  representatives  and  ministers 
here  on  earth. 

The  propriety  and  appropriateness,  if  not  necessity,  of  this, 
will  be  seen  more  clearly  by  attending  to  the  nature  of  the 
Church.  It  appears,  then,  on  reading  the  New  Testament, 
and  especially  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  that  the  Apostolic 
idea  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  or  of  the  Church,  was,  that  it 
included  all  the  actual  and  professed  subjects  of  the  King 
of  heaven,  whether  on  earth  or  in  heaven.  And  further, 
they  seem  to  have  regarded  the  visible  things  of  the  Church, 
in  some  sense  at  least,  as  types  of  the  invisible  ;  and  not  only 
as  types,  but  also  as  means  of  producing  the  things  of  which 
they  were  types.  This  idea  seems  to  have  been  copied  from 
the  Apostles  by  the  primitive  Christians,  and  to  have  formed 
the  basis  of  their  systematic  theology.  Not  that  they  ever  em- 
bodied these  ideas  in  so  many  words,  but,  that  a  perception  of 
them,  as  existing  in  the  mind,  lay  at  the  foundation  of  what 
they  wrote  upon  the  subject.  From  these  general  principles 
the  following  system  was  developed  : — 
4 


34  ONENESS  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

THE  CHURCH  is  one  ;  but  two  fold  in  its  nature  ; — 

1 .  Outward  and  visible : — the  Church  Militant  : — a  type 
of,  and  designed  to  prepare  us  for — 

2.  The  invisible  and  spiritual: — the  Church  Triumphant. 
I.   The  Church  is  one.     This  is  a  prime  article  of  faith  with 

the  greater  part  of  Christians,  though  denied  by  a  few.  In  the 
Creed  called  Apostolic,  we  profess  our  faith  in  "  one  Catho- 
lic (or  Universal)  Church  ;"  and  in  the  Nicene  Creed,  in  "  one 
Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church."  That  this  is  the  doctrine  of 
Scripture,  has  already  been  shown  ;  to  which  may  be  added, 
the  following  testimonies : — "  The  disciples  were  all  of  one 
heart  and  one  soul,"  (Acts  iv.  32  ;  xiii.  11  ;  Phil.  i.  27  ;  1  Pet. 
iii.  8  ;  Rev.  xvii.  13  ;)  "  being  one  body,"  (1  Cor.  x.  17 ;  xii. 
13,)  "  espoused  to  one  husband,"  (2  Cor.  xi.  2,)  having  "  one 
faith,  one  Lord,  one  baptism,  one  God."  (Eph.  iv.  5,  6.)  This 
language  is  most  decisive  of  the  oneness  of  the  Church. 

This,  too,  was  the  sentiment  of  the  primitive  Church,  as  we 
shall  see  in  the  course  of  this  inquiry.  We  shall,  therefore, 
only  quote  a  passage  from  Cyprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage. — 
Thus  he  says,*  "  The  Episcopate  ;  it  is  a  whole,  in  which  each 
enjoys  a  full  possession.  The  Church  is  likewise  one,  though 
she  be  spread  abroad,  and  multiplies  with  the  increase  of  her 
progeny  ;  even  as  the  sun  has  many  rays,  yet  one  light.  *  *  * 
Thus  the  Church,  flooded  wath  the  light  of  the  Lord,  puts  forth 
her  rays  through  the  whole  world,  yet  with  one  light,  which 
is  spread  upon  all  places,  while  its  unity  is  not  infringed." 

There  is  also  other  language  of  Scripture,  which  implies  the 
same  thing.  This  is  clearly  evident  from  the  Scripture  usage 
of  the  phrases,  "  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  and  "  the  kingdom 
of  God."     These  are  applied — 

1.  To  the  Church  on  earth.  "They  demanded  when  the 
kingdom  of  God  should  come."      (Matt.  xvii.  20.)       "  The 

♦  Unit.  Chiirth,  c.  4. 


TWOFOLD   IN   ITS   NATURE.  35 

kingdom  of  heaven  is  likened  unto  a  man  which  sowed  good 
seed  in  his  field  ;  but  while  men  slept,  the  enemy  came  and 
sowed  tares  among  the  wheat."  (Matt.  xiii.  24.)  "  The  king- 
dom of  heaven  is  like  a  net  cast  into  the  sea,  and  gathered  of 
every  kind."  (xiii.  47.)  And  again  :  "  I  will  give  you  the 
keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven."     (Matt.  xvi.  19.) 

2.  The  Church  in  heaven.  "  I  will  drink  no  more  of  the 
fruit  of  the  vine,  until  I  drink  it  new  in  the  kingdom  of  God." 
(Matt.  xiv.  25.)  "  The  unrighteous  shall  not  inherit  the 
kingdom  of  God."  (Rom.  vi.  9.)  "  Extortioners  shall  not 
inherit  the  kingdom  of  God."  (Eph.  v.  5;  Gal.  v.  21.) 
"  Flesh  and  blood  can  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God." 
(1  Cor.  XV.  50.) 

By  the  kingdom  of  God,  or  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  is  meant, 
therefore,  all  the  actually,  or  professedly  obedient  subjects  of 
the  King  of  heaven.  Metaphorically  and  figuratively,  the 
same  language  is  used  to  signify — 

1.  That  spiritual  principle  \Yh.iQh.  ^xodiUces  this  obedience. 

2.  And  also  the  doctrines  which  tend  to  produce  this  prin- 
ciple of  obedience. 

3.  And,  finally,  the  gospel  which  proclaims  those  doctrines. 

If,  then,  by  the  phrases,  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,  is  meant,  all  who  actually  are,  or  who  profess 
to  be,  obedient  subjects  of  the  King  of  heaven,  then  it  follows, 
that  it  includes  all  the  saints  in  heaven,  and  all  professed 
Christians  on  earth.  In  other  words,  the  kingdom  of  God, 
as  spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament,  includes  both  the  Church 
militant,  and  the  Church  triumphant.  Hence  it  follows,  that 
although — 

The  Church  is  one,  it  is  twofold  in  its  nature. 

1.  Outivard  and  visible  : — the  Church  Militant. 

2.  Invisible  and  spiritual : — the  Church  Triumphant. 
II.  The  Church  Militant  is   a   type  of  the   Church  Tri- 
umphant.    So    St.   Paul :  "  For  if  he,  (Christ,)    were  on 


36  THE   CHURCH  MILITANT  A  TYPE 

earth,  lie  should  not  be  a  priest,  seeing  that  there  are  priests 
that  offer  gifts  according  to  the   law  :   who   serve  unto   the 

EXAMPLE  AND   SHADOW  OF   HEAVENLY   THINGS  :     aS   MoSCS  WaS 

admonished  by  God,  when  he  was  about  to  make  the  taber- 
nacle :  for  see,  saith  he,  that  thou  make  all  things  according 
to  the  pattern  shoion  to  thee  in  the  mount.''  (Heb.  viii.  4,  5.) 
And  again  :  "  The  Holy  Ghost  this  signifying,  that  the  way 
into  the  holiest  of  all  was  not  yet  made  manifest,  while  as 
the  first  tabernacle  was  yet  standing  :  which  was  a  figure  for 
the  time  then  present^  (Heb.  ix.  8,  9.)  And  still  again  :  "  It 
was,  therefore,  necessary,  that  the  patterns  of  the  things  in 
the  heavens  should  be  purified  with  these,  [the  blood  of  sac- 
rifices ;]  but  the  heavenly  things  themselves  with  better 
things  than  these."  (Heb.  ix.  23.)  Now  it  follows,  neces- 
sarily, that  the  tabernacle  which  "  was  a  figure  for  the  time 
then  present,"  "  a  pattern  of  the  heavenly  things,  and  "  an 
example  and  shadow  of  heavenly  things,"  was  a  type  of  those 
things  of  which  it  was  an  "  example,"  "  shadow,"  and  "  pat- 
tern." We  may,  therefore,  consider  it  as  clearly  proved,  that 
the  Church  Militant,  under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  was  a  type 
of  the  Church  Triumphant. 

From  the  foregoing  we  infer,  that  the  Church  Militant  under 
the  Christian  dispensation,  is  a  type  of  the  Church  Tri- 
umphant, because  the  Jewish  and  Christian  Church  is  the 
same  Church,  under  different  dispensations.  Thus  St.  Paul : 
"  For  the  law  [the  Jewish  dispensation]  having  a  shadow  of 
good  things  to  come,  and  not  the  very  image  of  the  things." 
(Heb.  x.  1.)  The  words  here  translated  "shadow"  and 
"  image,"  would  convey  a  fuller  idea  of  the  sense  of  the 
original,  were  they  rendered  "  an  outline,"  like  the  first  draft 
or  plan  of  a  picture ;  and  "  a  full  representation,"  like  the 
plan  or  outline  completed.  And  this  "  fuller  representation," 
the  Apostle  tells  us,  is  contained  in  the  gospel.     But  neither 


OF  THE  CHURCH  TRIUMPHANT.  37 

the  "  outline,"  nor  yet  the  fuller  representation  of  a  thing,  is 
the  thing  itself.     We  have,  then — 

1.  The  law,  which  has  a  brief  outline  of;  and, 

2.  The  Gospel,  which  has  a  full  representation  of — 

3.  The  substance,  or  salvation  that  awaits  the  faithful  in 
heaven. 

Both,  therefore,  refer  to  the  same  thing ;  differing  only  in 
their  fullness  : — the  one  presenting  a  mere  sketch ;  the  other 
the  filling  up  of  the  picture.  Both,  therefore,  came  from  the 
same  source  ; — both  have  the  same  end  in  view,  and  both 
point  to  the  same  thing.  Hence  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  con- 
sider the  two  dispensations  as  distinct  and  independent 
Churches,  The  former  covenant  is  not  done  away,  nor  abro- 
gated. It  IS  fulfilled,  but  not  destroyed.  (See  Matt.  v.  17  ; 
Luke  xxii.  44.)  Now  3,  fulfillment  is  not  a  destruction  or 
abrogation.  The  filling  up  of  a  picture  causes  it  to  present 
a  different  appearance,  but  does  not  change  the  outline.  It  is 
the  completion  of  the  picture,  not  the  destruction  of  it.  So 
the  Gospel  is  the  fulfillment,  not  the  destruction  of  the  law. 

The  same  doctrine  is  still  more  clearly  asserted  by  St.  Paul, 
in  other  places.  Thus  he  tells  the  Roman  Christians,  (Rom. 
X.  1,)  that  they  are  "  a  wild  olive  grafted  in  among  the  natural 
branches."  In  this  figure,  the  Christian  Church  is  represented 
as  standing  in  the  same  place,  growing  out  of  the  same  tree, 
and  drawing  its  nourishment  from  the  same  source,  and  through 
the  same  channels  as  the  Jewish  Church  which  preceded 
it.  It  is,  therefore,  the  same  tree  still, — planted  in  the  same 
soil,  watered  by  the  same  streams,  and  refreshed  by  the  same 
dews.     It  is  not,  therefore,  a  new,  but  the  same  Church. 

The  same  conclusion  must  be  drawn  from  the  language  of 
the  Apostle  to  the  Ephesian  Christians,  (c.  ii.)  Thus  he 
tells  them,  while  they  were  of  the  "  Uncircumcision,"  they 
were  "  aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel ;  and  strangers 
from  the  covenants  of  promise."  But  now  he  tells  them,  that 
4* 


38  THE  CHURCH  MILITANT   A  TYPE 

Christ  '*  hath  broken  down  the  middle  wall  of  partition,  be- 
tween Jew  and  Gentile."  It  would  be  impossible  to  assert 
the  identity  of  the  two  dispensations  in  stronger  language 
than  this  ;  and  since  it  has  been  shown  that  the  Church  Mili- 
tant under  the  former  dispensation,  was  a  type  of  the  Church 
Triumphant,  it  follows,  necessarily,  that  the  Church  Militant 
under  the  present  dispensation,  must  also  be  a  type  of  the 
Church  Triumphant. 

The  other  point,  that  the  Church  Militant  was  designed  to 
prepare  us  for  the  Church  Triumphant,  no  one  will  pretend 
to  doubt.     We  may  therefore  set  it  down  as  proved,  that — 

THE   CHURCH  is  one,  but  twofold  in  its  nature  : — 

1.  Outward  and  visible: — the  Church  Militant: — a  type 
of,  and  designed  to  prepare  us  for  the — 

2.  Invisible  and  spiritual  : — the  Caurch  Triumphant. 

The  conclusion  here  drawn,  is  fully  sustained  by  the  inter- 
pretation of  Primitive  writers.  This  will  appear  from  a  single 
passage  from  Clement,  of  Alexandria,  A.  D.  175.  In  speaking 
of  the  marital  relation,  he  quotes  the  language  of  the  Apostle 
in  Ephesians  5th,  and  Colossians  3d  ;  and  in  connection  with 
it  says  :  "The  Terrestrial  Church  is  the  image  [eikon  or 
likeness)  of  the  Celestial."*  And  in  another  placet  he  says : 
"  I  imagine  the  progressions  in  the  Church,  of  Bishops,  Pres- 
byters, and  Deacons,  to  be  imitations  (mimemata)  of  the  An- 
gelic glory."  The  same  idea  was  recognized  and  acted  upon 
by  other  Primitive  writers,  especially  by  Ignatius,  Bishop  of 
Antioch,  in  his  Epistles.  Thus  he  exhorts  the  Trallians  to 
"  reverence  the  Deacons  as  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  Bishop 
as  the  Father,  and  the  Presbyters  as  the  Council  of  God."| 
But  by  this  he  does  not  design  to  exhort  them  to  pay  di- 
vine honors  to  these  men,  but  to  "  reverence"  the  former,  as 
holding  places  in  the  visible  Church,  analogous  to  those  held 

*  Strom.  4^  p.  500,  Par.  Ed.  f  Strom.  6,  p.  G67.         t  c  3. 


OF  THE  CHURCH  TRIUMPHANT.  39 

by  the  latter  in  the  invisible.  In  other  words,  he  uses  language 
in  the  same  sense  in  which  St.  Paul  used  it,  when  he  said  to 
the  Galatians,  "  ye  received  me  as  an  angel  of  God, — even  as 
Jesus  Christ."  (Gal.  iv.  14.)  So  also  he  speaks  of  the 
"  Bishops  as  presiding  in  the  place  of  God,"*  that  is,  holding 
the  headship  of  the  Church  on  earth,  as  the  Father  holds  the 
headship  of  the  Church  in  heaven  ;  and  is  "  the  Bishop  of  us 
all."t  And  so  in  many  other  places,  to  which  we  shall  have 
occasion  to  allude  in  other  parts  of  the  work. 

From  these  considerations,  (to  which  many  more  might  be 
added,)  it  follows  conclusively,  that  the  Church  on  earth, 
which  is  an  image  of  the  Church  above,  must  have  such  a 
visible  head,  as  shall  constitute  it  a  perfect  visible  body.  And 
it  also  follows,  that  as  there  is  no  head  over  any  other  heads, 
in  that  spiritual  and  invisible  Church,  so  there  can  be  no  such 
thing  as  a  head  over  other  heads,  in  the  Church  on  earth. 
Each  Church,  within  a  particular  portion  of  country,  forms  a 
complete  and  distinct  Church,  independent  of  every  other 
Church ;  but  it  is  still  a  representation,  or  image  of  the  one 
Church  in  heaven.  Consequently,  every  complete  and  per- 
fect Church  on  earth,  is  "  an  image  of  the  heavenly,"  so  that 
the  various  Churches  in  the  several  countries,  are  so  many 
copies  of  the  same  heavenly  pattern  :  and  hence  all  must  be 
essentially  the  same  ; — must  be  constituted  in  a  similar  man- 
ner, and  be  independent  of  every  other.  Yet,  as  being  parts 
of  the  same  great  body,  they  must  be  in  communion  with  each 
other,  and  are  bound  mutually  to  assist  and  support  each 
other. 

There  is,  also,  another  analogy,  which  must  not  be  for- 
gotten. 

(5.)  There  must  be  a  spirit  in  tliis  body.  And  that  spirit  is 
Christ.     He  is  the  life-blood  of  the  Church.     To  carry  out 

*  Ep.  Mag.  0.  U.  t  lb.  c.  3. 


40  THE  CHURCH   A  KINGDOM. 

the  figure,  his  blood  circulates  in  the  veins  of  the  Church, 
giving  spiritual  life  to  all  vt^ho  come  there  to  seek  it.  Take 
away  this  spirit  and  the  body  ceases  to  be  a  living  body,  and 
becomes  a  corpse.  It  retains  the  form  of  a  body,  but  it  has 
lost  the  principle  of  vitality,  and  will  soon  become  corrupt. 

(6.)  Another  conclusion  authorized  by  this  comparison,  is, 
that  all  Churches  should  agree  in  their  general  organization. 
Particular  circumstances  will  modify  the  complexion  and 
countenance  of  the  body ;  and  peculiar  circumstances  will 
modify,  if  we  may  so  say,  the  complexion  of  the  Church. 
But  the  same  organization  must  remain.  The  same  essentials 
must  be  there. 

(7.)  Another  very  obvious  inference  from  the  foregoing,  is, 
that  there  should  be  but  one  Church  within  a  given  space. 
It  is  an  axiom  in  the  physical  world,  that  no  two  bodies  can 
occupy  the  same  place,  at  the  same  time.  So  also  it  must  be 
with  the  Church,  if  that  be  a  perfect  body.  Hence,  the  no- 
tion that  it  is  better  for  religion  that  there  should  be  a  variety 
of  Churches  in  the  same  place,  can  not  be  a  sound  one. 

(8.)  We  may  also  learn  from  this  figure  of  the  Apostle,  to 
what  extent  the  body  may  be  mutilated,  without  causing  its 
complete  destruction.  It  may  suffer  the  amputation  of  a 
hand  or  foot,  or  possibly  of  both  hands  and  feet ;  and  though 
it  would  thus  be  rendered  inefficient  and  defenseless,  it  might 
still  continue  to  exist  as  a  body.  But  deprive  it  of  its  head, 
and  you  take  away  that  which  is  essential  to  its  existence, 
and  without  which  it  must  soon  fall  to  pieces  and  go  to  decay. 

Thus  much  the  language  of  the  Apostle  clearly  authorizes 
us  to  infer.  It  is,  indeed,  a  positive  statement  of  facts,  which 
inevitably  leads  to  this  conclusion  ;  and  as  he  has  nowhere 
limited  the  application  of  the  figure,  we  may  not  take  it  upon 
ourselves  to  do  so.  But  if  any  are  unwilling  to  rely  on  this 
as  proof,  they  can  not  object  to  its  introduction,  as  assist- 
ing to  develop  the  Apostolic  idea  of  the  Church. 


CATHOLIC  OR   UNIVERSAL.  41 

6.  Again,  The  head  is  called  a  king.  Gen.  xiv.  18  ;  Ezek. 
xxxvii.  24,  25  ;  Hos.  iii.  5  ;  Matt.  xxi.  5  ;  John  i.  49  ;  xii. 
13 — 15,  and  elsewhere  often. 

7.  And  the  Church  itself  is  called  a  kingdom.  That  the 
phrase,  "  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  and  the  phrase,  "  the 
kingdom  of  God,"  often  denote  the  Church  of  "  the  living 
God,"  has  already  been  shown,  so  that  we  shall  only  enu- 
merate some  of  the  passages  referred  to  by  Prof.  Robinson, 
(p.  130,)  where  it  is  so  used.  Matt.  vi.  10  ;  xii.  28  ;  xiii.  24, 
31,  33,  41,  47  ;  xvi.  28  ;  Mark  iv.  30  ;  xi.  10  ;  Luke  xiii. 
18,  20  ;  Acts  xix.  8,  etc. 

These  terms  all  necessarily  imply,  that  the  Apostolic 
Church  was  a  regularly  organized  Society,  with  officers  and 
laws.  They  are,  indeed,  direct  statements  of  facts,  incom- 
patible with  any  supposition,  but  that  of  a  regular  uniform 
system  of  organization  ;  and  this  inference  is  nowhere  con- 
tradicted in  Scripture.  We  may  therefore  set  it  down  as  an 
incontrovertible  fact,  that  the  Apostolic  Church  was  a 
REGULARLY  ORGANIZED  SociETY.  Forthis  rcason  we  conclude, 
that  the  Church  in  all  ages,  should  be  a  regularly  organized 
society,  and  as  such,  must  be  endowed  with  perpetual  duration. 

But  though  in  a  general  sense,  the  Church  was  one,  Uni- 
versal, or  Catholic,  yet  in  a  limited  sense  of  the  word,  there 
were  many  Churches  ;  as  the  Church  of  Jerusalem,  of  Rome, 
of  Ephesus,  of  Colosse,  of  Thessalonica,  of  Crete,  of  Smyr- 
na, and  the  like.  And  that  each  Church  was  complete  and 
perfect  in  itself,  is  clearly  deducible  from  the  language  of  the 
Apostle,  since  he  speaks  of  these  several  Churches  as  dis- 
tinct, and  at  the  same  time  as  complete.  But  it  is  to  be  ob- 
served, that  he  never  speaks  of  more  than  one  Church  in  the 
same  place.  Hence  we  must  conclude,  that  every  Church 
was  so  complete  and  perfect  in  itself,  that  it  would  remain  a 
complete  and  perfect  Church,  though  every  other  Church  in 
the  world  had  been  destroyed.     Consequently,  the  head  of  a 


42  BAPTISM BAPTIZO. 

Chiircli,  within  any  given  territory,  was  not  only  ruler  over 
those  within  his  territory,  but  was  also  so  head  of  the  Church, 
that  in  case  the  head  of  the  Churches  in  all  other  districts 
should  be  taken  away,  he  would  be  the  visible  head  over  all 
the  Church  on  earth. 


CHAPTER  V. 

WHO   COMPOSED   THE  APOSTOLIC   CHURCH BAPTISM. 

Having  determined  what  the  Church  is,  v/e  are  now  ready 
to  inquire,  who  compose  it  ?  To  this  question,  but  one  answer 
has  ever  been  given,  viz.,  those  who  have  received  Christian 
baptism,  and  have  not  been  rightfully  excommunicated.  Though 
men  have  differed  widely  in  regard  to  the  mode  of  Christian 
baptism,  they  have  ever  held  this  to  be  the  only  rite  of  initia- 
tion into  the  Christian  Church  ;  and  the  perfect  unanimity  on 
this  point,  would  excuse  us  from  offering  any  proof  of  it, 
were  we  not  inquiring  as  to  the  scriptural  draught  of  the 
Apostolic  Church.  We  proceed,  therefore,  to  show,  that  this 
unanimous  opinion  of  all  sects  and  parties,  is  a  scriptural 
doctrine. 

In  proof  of  this,  there  are  several  distinct  arguments  ;  but 
one  of  them  must  be  entirely  satisfactory.  Christ  instituted 
but  two  ordinances — baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper  ;  and  that 
baptism  was  the  rite  of  initiation,  appears  expressly  from 
the  language  made  use  of  by  Paul  in  his  Epistles  :  "  There 
is  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism^''  (Eph.  iv.  5,)  by  which 
"we  are  all  baptized  into  one  body"  (1  Cor.  xii.  13,)  which 
"  body  is  the  Church,"  (Col.  i.  18.) 

But  though  men  agree  as  to  the  nature  and  design  of  bap-^ 
tism,  they  differ  widely  as  to  what  constitutes   baptism  ;  and, 


MEANING  IN   DICTIONARIES.  43 

also,  as  to  who  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism.  And  as  these 
are  very  important  inquiries,  laying  at  the  foundation  of  the 
Church,  they  must  be  examined  with  great  care  and  atten- 
tion. "We  shall  first  consider  the  mode  of  baptism  ;  and  then 
inquire,  who  are  proper  subjects  of  it  ?  In  pursuing  this  inqui- 
ry, there  are  four  kinds  of  evidence  to  be  considered. 

1 .  The  meaning  given  to  the  language  used,  in  the  diction- 
aries. 

2.  Its  usage  (1)  in  the  New  Testament,  and  (2)  in  the 
Old  Testament. 

3.  The  allusions  made  to  the  mode  of  performing  the  rite, 
in  the  New  Testament. 

4.  The  account  given  of  it  by  the  Primitive  Christians. 
The  words  used  in  the  New  Testament  on  this   subject, 

are  baptizo,  to  baptize ;  and  the  derivative,  baptismos,  bap- 
tism. Our  first  inquiry,  therefore,  is,  what  is  the  meaning  of 
the  word  baptizo  ?  We  may  remark,  however,  that  baptizo 
itself,  is  a  derivative  from  bapto ;  and  that  both  are  so  fre- 
quently referred  to,  that  we  must  inquire  into  the  meaning  of 
both. 

1.  What  is  the  meaning  given  to  bapto  and  baptizo,  in  the 
dictionaries  ?  In  answer  to  this  inquiry,  we  may  remark, 
that  the  dictionaries  give  various  meanings,  and  hence  as  it 
is  agreed  on  all  hands,  that  the  native  Greeks  are  the  best 
authority  for  the  meaning  of  their  own  lang-uage,  we  shall 
refer  the  question  to  them.  We  give,  therefore,  the  definitions 
of  these  words,  only  from  native  Greek  Lexicographers. 

The  oldest  Native  Greek  Lexicographer  is  Hesychius, 
who  lived  in  the  fourth  century  of  the  Christian  era.  He 
gives  only  the  root  bapto  ;  and  the  only  meaning  he  gives 
the  word  is  antleo,  "  to  draw,  or  pu7np  water,"  Next  in  order 
comes  SuiDAS,  a  native  Greek,  who  wrote  in  the  tenth  cen- 
tury. He  gives  only  the  derivative,  baptizo,  and  defines  it  by 
pluno,    "  to   wash"     Passing   over  the    intermediate    Greek 


44  DEFINITIONS  OF  GASES. 

Lexicographers,  we  come  down  to  the  present  century,  at  the 
beginnmg  of  which,  we  find  Gases,  a  learned  Greek,  who 
with  great  labor  and  pains  compiled  a  large  and  valuable 
Lexicon  of  the  ancient  Greek  language.  His  book,  in  three 
volumes  quarto,  is  a  work  deservedly  held  in  high  estimation 
by  all,  and  is  generally  used  by  native  Greeks.  The  fol- 
lowing are  his  definitions  of  hapto  and  haptizo* 
Bapto,  brecho,  to  wet,  moisten,  bedew. 

Pluno,  to  wash,  (viz.  clothes.) 

Gemizo,  to  Jill. 
-/.  Buthizo,  to  dip. 

Antleo,  to  draw,  to  pump  water. 
Baptizo,  brecho,  to  wet,  moisten,  bedew. 

Pluno,  to  wash. 

Louo,  to  wash,  to  bathe. 

Antleo,  to  draw,  to  pump  water. 
These   are  the   definitions   of  a  "  native   Greek,"  and  are 
entitled  to  the  highest  deference,  both  for  his   learning  and 
his  Ecclesiastical  connections. 

2.  What  is  the  Scriptural  usage  of  bapto  and  baptizo  ? 
It  is  said  by  some,  that  "  the  Hebrew  word,  tdbal ;  the  Greek, 
bapto,  and  the  Latin,  mergo,  uniformly  rendered  dip,  in  the 
English  Bible,  are  corresponding  words,  and  mean,  to  dip,  to 
immerse,  to  plunge."  This  opinion  we  are  obliged  to  reject, 
for  reasons  we  shall  lay  before  our  readers.  But  we  ought 
to  remark,  that  dip  and  immerse  are  not,  as  many  seem  to 
suppose,  synonymous  words.  A  body  is  never  immersed  in 
water,  until  it  is  entirely  covered  by  the  water;  but  it  is 
dipped  IN  or  into  water,  when  any  part  of  it  comes  in  con- 
tact with  the  water.  Thus,  a  man  dips  his  pen,  that  is,  the 
point  of  his  pen,  in  ink,  and  "  dips  his  finger,  that  is,  the  tip 
of  his  finger,  in  water,"  but  in  neither  case  is  there  any  im- 

*  Ed.  Venice,  3  vols.  4to. 


MEANING  OF  BAPTO.  46 

mersion.  The  question,  therefore,  is,  do  the  foregoing  words 
signify,  to  immerse,  in  the  sense  claimed  for  them,  that  is,  a 
complete  immersion  of  the  thing  dipped  ?  This  question  must 
be  decided  by  scriptural  usage  alone,  to  which,  therefore,  we 
now  turn  our  attention, 

I.  The  Hebrew  and  Greek  words  above  mentioned,  denote 
a  partial  dipping,  or  wetting,  as  appears  from  the  uniform 
scriptural  usage. 

"  And  as  the  feet  of  the  priests  that  bare  the  ark  were  dip- 
ped (Hebrew,  nitVlu  ;  Greek,  ebaphesan)  in  the  brim  of  the 
water.''''  (Josh.  iii.  15.)  There  was  plainly  no  immersion 
here,  but  simply  a  touching  of  the  soles  of  the  feet.  Similar 
to  this  was  the  language  of  Dives  to  Abraham  :  "  Send  Laz- 
arus, that  he  may  dip  (hapse)  the  tip  of  his  finger  in  water." 
(Luke  xvi,  24.)  So  in  the  various  Jewish  purifications,  none 
of  the  dippings  were  immersions.  Thus  the  priest  is  told  that 
"  he  shall  dip  (Hebrew,  v''tahcil;  Greek,  bapsei)  his  finger,  or 
a  bunch  of  hyssop,  that  is,  the  end  of  his  finger,  or  the  end 
of  the  bunch  of  hyssop,  in  the  wat§r."  (Ex.  xii.  22 ;  Lev.  iv. 
16,  17;  ix.  9;  xiv.  6,  16,  51  ;  Numb.  xix.  18  ;  Deut.  xxxiii. 
24.)  So  Jonathan  "put  forth  the  end  of  his  rod  and  dipped 
(Hebrew,  vayitbol ;  Greek,  ebapsen)  in  the  honey-comb." 
(1  Sam.  xiv.  27.)  To  the  same  effect  in  Ruth,  (ii.  14:) 
"  And  dip  (Hebrew,  vHabdW ;  Greek,  bapseis)  thy  morsel  in 
the  vinegar."  So  also  the  language  of  Christ  to  Judas  denotes 
di, partial  dipping  :  "  He  that  dippeth  (Matt.  xxvi.  2.3,  embapsas ; 
Mark  xiv.  20,  embaptomenos ;  John  xiii.  26,  embapsas)  with 
me  in  the  dish."  In  one  place  in  Job,  (ix.  31,)  these  words 
have  the  sense  of  to  plunge,  in  the  common  acceptation  of  the 
word,  that  is,  to  cast  headlong  ;  as,  "  Thou  shalt  plunge 
(Hebrew,  titVlenl ;  Greek,  ebapsas)  me  into  the  ditch." 

If  there  was  any  room  for  doubt,  after  considering  the  fore- 
going, the  following  would  entirely  settle  the  question  :  Thus, 
when  Nebuchadnezzar  was  driven  from  the  abodes  of  men,  it 
5 


46  MEANING  OF  BAPTIZO 

is  said  that  "  his  body  was  wet  (Chaldean,  itstaha'h  ;  Greek, 
ebaphe)  with  the  dew  of  heaven."  (Dan.  iv.  33  ;  v.  23,  or 
iv.  30,  and  v.  21,  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek.)  Here  the 
Greek  bapto,  does  not  signify  to  dip,  in  any  sense,  but  merely 
to  wet,  or  moisten,  and  is  therefore  synonymous  with  hrecho, 
as  defined  above.  In  one  place  in  2  Kings,  (viii.  15,)  and  in 
one  in  Leviticus,  (xi.  32,)  bapto  appears  to  have  the  sense  of 
to  immerse,  which  are  the  only  places  in  the  Bible  where  it 
has  that  signification.  In  Psalms  (Ixviii.  23,  or  Ixviii.  24, 
of  the  Greek)  and  in  Revelations,  (xix.  13,)  it  has  the  mean- 
ing of  to  tinge,  dye,  or  stain,  which  may  be  done  either  by 
sprinkling  or  immersing.  These,  we  believe,  are  all  the  pla- 
ces in  the  Bible  where  bapto  occurs  in  any  form  ;  and  we  see, 
therefore,  that  out  of  twenty-three  instances,  it  has  the  sense 
of  immersion  but  twice. 

II.  From  bapto,  comes  baptizo,  which  being  a  frequen- 
tive  in  form,  ought  to  signify  a  repeated  action,*  and  is  in  fact 
so  defined  by  Schneider, |  "  Ich  tauche  oft  ein,"  /  dip  in  often. 
But  though  it  has  the  form  of  a  frequentive,  most  lexicogra- 
phers are  not  willing  to  allow  that  it  has  that  signification. \ 
We  propose,  therefore,  to  examine  the  scriptural  use  of  this 
word,  in  the  same  manner  as  we  have  the  root  from  which  it 
is  derived,  that  is,  in  every  case  where  it  occurs  in  the  Bible. 

The  word  baptizo,  is  defined  by  some,  to  signify,  "  to  im- 
merse, to  submerge,  to  sink."  The  point  of  inquiry,  therefore, 
now  is,  does  the  Scripture  usage  sustain  these  definitions  ? 
To  this  we  are  obliged  by  the  facts  to  answer  in  the  negative. 
This  word  occurs  in  the  Old  Testament  four  times ;  twice  in 
the  Canonical  books,  and  twice  in  the  Apocrypha.  It  first 
occurs  in  2  Kings,  (v.  11, 14  :)  "  And  Elijah  sent  a  messenger 
unto  Naaman,  saying,  go  and  wash  [lousai)  in  Jordan  seven 


*  Butt.  Gr.  Gram.,  §  119,  1,  2.  f  Gr.  Lex.,  2  vol.  4to. 

t  Rob.  Gr.  Lex.  N.  T. 


OF  RAHATS  AND  LOUO.  47 

times Then  he  went  and  washed  himself  (ehapti- 

sato)  in  Jordan  seven  times."  Here  the  word  is  used  in 
accordance  with  what,  judging  from  its  form,  should  be  its 
meaning,  to  signify  a  repeated  action,  which  action  was  a 
washing  of  purification.  In  Ecclesiasticus,  (xxxiv.  25,  or 
xxxi.  30,  or  xxxiv.  27,)  it  is  used  in  the  same  manner :  "  If 
he  that  washeth  himself,  [baptizomenos,)  after  touching  a  dead 
body,  touch  it  again,  what  availeth  his  washing,  [loutro)  V  In 
both  of  these  instances,  haptizo  is  used  as  synonymous  with 
louo,  to  wash,  and  therefore,  according  to  the  principles  of 
those  who  hold  immersion  alone  to  be  baptism,  "  it  is  not  es- 
sential how  it  was  performed."  But  lest  some  may  say  that 
the  original  Hebrew  would  lead  to  another  conclusion,  we 
shall  dwell  a  moment  upon  that  point. 

Louo  is  the  common  word  used  in  the  Septuagint  to  denote 
the  washings  of  purification,  and  is  the  equivalent  of  the  He- 
brew rahats,  and  is  found  in  the  places  mentioned  in  the  note.* 
We  believe  it  occurs  in  but  one  other  place  in  the  Bible, 
(Psalms  vi.  6,)  where  it  has  the  sense  of  to  wet,  or  moisten: 
"  I  wet  my  couch  with  tears."  We  may  therefore  learn  some- 
thing of  the  meaning  of  this  word  from  an  examination  of  the 
Hebrew  rahats ;  and  we  accordingly  give  a  few  examples 
where  it  is  used  :  ".A  little  water  to  wash  the  feet."  (Gen. 
xviii.  4.)  "  He  washed  his  face."  (Gen.  xliii.  31.)  "  Thou 
shalt  bring  Aaron  and  his  sons  unto  the  door  of  the  taberna- 
cle, and  shall  wash  them-"  (Ex.  xxix.  4,  and  xl.  12.)  "And 
Moses  brought  Aaron  and  his  sons  [to  the  door  of  the  taber- 
nacle] and  washed  them  with  water."  (Lev.  viii.  6.)  The 
same  language  is  used  in  reference  to  all  the  purifications. 

*  Ex.  ii.  5 ;  xxix.  4  ;  xl.  12.  Lev.  viii.  6  ;  xv.  5,  6,  7,  8,  10, 11, 12, 13, 
16,  21,  26;  xvi.  4,  24,  26,  28  ;  xvii.  15,  16  ;  xxii.  7.  Numb.  xix.  7,  19. 
Deut.  xxiii.  11.  Ruth  iii.  3.  2  Sam.  xi.  2;  xii.  20.  1  Kings  xxii.  38; 
2  Kings  v.  10,  12,  13.  Cant.  v.  13.  Is.  i.  16.  Ezek.  xiv.  4,  9;  xxiii. 
40.     Susanna  15,  17,  in  Apoc. 


48  MEANING  OF  BAPTIZO  — 

An  unclean  person  was  "  to  wash  himself  in  water ;"  (Lev. 
XV.  5,  7,  8,  10,  11,  21,  22,  27;  xvii.  15;  Deut.  xxiii.  lO  ; 
Numb.  xix.  19;)  also,  "  ^o  wash  his  flesh  in  water."  (Lev. 
xi.  13,  16;  xvi.  4,  24,  26,  28;  xvii.  16;  xxi.  16;  Numb, 
xix.  7,  8.)  "  And  one  washed  the  chariot  in  the  pool." 
(1  Kings  xxii.  38.)  "  His  eyes,  like  doves',  with  new  milk 
washed.''^  (Cant.  v.  12.)  "Thou  wast  not  washed  in  wdXex 
in  the  day  of  thy  nativity."  (Ezek.  xvi.  4,  9.)  These  ex- 
amples are  abundantly  sufficient  to  prove,  that  rahdts,  in  the 
Hebrew,  and  louo,  in  the  Septuagint,  denote  ivashings  per- 
formed by  the  application  of  water  to  the  person,  and  not  by 
putting  the  person  into  the  water.  Hence,  in  the  cases  before 
cited,  as  baptizo  is  the  equivalent  of  rahdts  and  louo,  it  must 
have  the  same  meaning. 

Besides,  St.  Paul  expressly  calls  these  washings  of  purifi- 
cation, baptisms.  (Heb.  ix.  9,  10.)  "  Which  was  a  figure 
for  the  time  then  present,  ....  which  stood  only  in  meats 
and  drinks,  and  divers  washings,  (Greek,  baptismois,  ^  h^i'p- 
iisms.')"  So  all  the  primitive  writers  understood  him.  Thus 
St.  Ambrose,*  "  The  Jews  had  many  baptisms,  some  superflu- 
ous, some  as  a  figure.  And  the  figure  itself  profiteth,  because 
it  is  the  herald  of  truth." 

The  next  place  in  the  Canonical  books  of  the  Old  Testament, 
where  this  word  occurs,  is  Isaiah,  (xxi.  4  :)  "  My  heart  pant- 
eth ;  fearfulness  Jills  [baptizei)  me."  In  this  case,  baptizo  is 
synonymous  with  to  fill,  (gemizo,)  according  to  one  of  the  defi- 
nitions of  Gases,  quoted  above.  The  other  place  is  Judith, 
(xii.  7:)  "And  Judith  went  out  by  night  and  washed  herself 
{ebaptizeto)  in  a  fountain,  (that  is,  in  a  spring,)  by  the  camp." 
In  this  case  there  is  no  reason  why  the  word  in  question 
should  not  be  understood  as  in  the  former  cases  of  washing, 
and  if  so,  then  there  was  no  immersion.     We  are,  therefore, 

*De  Sac.  II.  1. 


DENOTES  WASHING.  49 

authorized  to  say,  that  the  authority  of  the  Septuagint  is  de- 
cidedly against  the  opinion^  that  baptizo  means  "  to  immerse, 
submerge,  or  sink."  We  turn  now  to  the  New  Testament, 
and  inquire  how  baptizo  is  used  there. 

1.  This  word  is  used  as  synonymous  with  words  which 
denote  washing.     "  The  Pharisees  and  the  Jews,  except  they 

wash  hands,  (nipsontai,)  eat  not When  they  come 

from  the  market,  except  they  wash,  [baptisontai,)  they  eat  not. 
And  many  other  things  there  be,  which  they  have  received  to 
hold,  as  the  washing  (baptismous  or  baptism)  of  cups  and 
pots,  brazen  vessels  and  tables Why  do  thy  disci- 
ples eat  bread  with  unwashen  (aniptois)  hands."  (Mark  vii. 
3,  4,  5.)  So,  "  The  Pharisees  marveled  that  Jesus  had  not 
first  washed  [ebaptisthe  or  baptized)  before  dinner."  (Luke 
xi.  38.)  That  nipto  does  not  mean  to  immerse,  is  admitted  by 
all :  but  every  reader  may  satisfy  himself  of  the  fact  by  ex- 
amining the  places  where  it  occurs  in  the  New  Testament. 
(xMatt.vi.  17;  xv.  2  ;  John  ix.  7, 11, 15  ;  xiii.  5,  6,  8, 10, 12,  14; 
1  Tim.  V.  10.)  Baptism  \s  also  called  the  washing  {loutrou) 
of  regeneration,  or  "  the  new  birth."     (Titus  iii.  5.) 

2.  In  a  majority  of  instances  in  the  New  Testament,  the 
word  is  used  without  any  qualifying  words  to  denote  the  man- 
ner of  its  performance,  and  we  must  therefore  interpret  it  ac- 
cording to  the  customary  usage  of  the  Scriptures,  to  signify,  a 
washing* 

3.  It  is  construed  with  words  denoting  the  instrument 
WITH  which  baptism  was  sometimes  performed,  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  exclude  the  idea  of  immersion.  Thus  St.  Luke 
says  :    "  John  baptized  with  water,  but  Christ  baptized  with 

*  It  is  thus  used  in  Matt.  iii.  6,  13,  14,  16  ;  xxviii.  19.  Mark  i.  4,  5,  9; 
vi.  14 ;  xvi.  16.  Luke  iii.  7,  12,  21 ;  vii.  29,  30;  xi.  38  ;  xiii.  38.  John 
i.  25,. 28;  iii.  22,  23,  26;  iv.  1,  2;  x.  40.  Acts  ii.  38,  41  ;  viii.  12,  13,  16, 
36,  38;  ix.  18  ;  x.  47,  48  ;  xi.  16  ;  xvi.  15,  33  ;  xviii.  8  ;  xix.  3,  4,  5; 
xxii.  16.  1  Cor.  i.  13,  14,  15,  16,  17  ;  xii.  13 ;  xv.  29.  Gal.  iii.  27. 
5* 


50  SCRIPTURE  Illusions 

the  Holy  Ghost.'*'  (Luke  iii.  16  ;  Acts  i.  5;  xi.  16.)  A  sim- 
ilar phraseology,  but  accompanied  by  a  preposition,  occurs  in 
Matthew,  (ii.  11  ;)  Mark,  (i.  8,)  and  John,  (i.  26,  31,  33.) 
Some,  however,  claim  that  these  passages  should  all  of  them 
be  translated  so  as  to  read,  "  I  baptize  you  in  water,  but  he 
shall  baptize  you  in  the  Holy  Ghost."  They  ground  their  ar- 
gument for  this,  on  the  meaning  of  the  Greek  preposition  en, 
which  primarily  denoted  in.  But  however  well  this  argu- 
ment might  hold  in  reference  to  the  writings  of  Matthew, 
Mark,  and  John,  it  has  no  force  when  applied  to  the  writings 
of  Luke,  as,  udati,  water ^  is,  "  the  dative  of  the  instrument,"* 
or  "  in  the  instrumental  case,"f  without  the  preposition,  and 
consequently  could  not  be  rendered  in.  But  further,  it  is  not 
true,  that  en  always  means  in.  It  frequently  denotes  "  the 
manner  or  mode,  that  is,  the  state  or  circumstances  by  which 
an  action  is  accompanied, "|  as  may  be  seen  by  comparing 
Matt.  xxii.  37,  and  Rom.  xv.  6,  where  it  has  the  force  of  with. 
4.  It  is  construed  with  words  denoting  the  effect  of  bap- 
tism, in  such  a  manner  as  to  negative  the  idea  of  immersion. 
Thus  Christ  says  of  himself:  "  I  have  a  baptism  to  he  baptized 
with."  (Luke  xii.  50.)  And  he  inquired  of  two  of  his  disci- 
ples, "  Are  ye  able  to  be  baptized  with  the  baptism  that  I  am 
b  aptized  with,"  (Matt.  xx.  22,  23  ;  Mark  x.  38,  39.)  So  also, 
persons  were  said  to  be  baptized  ^^  into  (eis)  Moses,"  (I  Cor. 
X.  2,)  and  "  into  Christ,"  (Gal.  iii.  27,)  and  "  into  repentance," 
(Matt.  iii.  11,)  and  "  into  death,"  (Rom.  vi.  3.)  To  substitute 
"  immerse,  .submerge,  or  sink,^'  as  the  meaning  of  baptizo,  in 
any  of  these  places,  would  be  absurd.  Indeed,  these  passa- 
ges can  not  be  construed  so  as  to  make  any  sense,  except  by 
considering  baptism  as  a  symbolic  washing. 

*  Rob,  Gr.  Lex.  New  Testament. 

tHist.  Crit.  View  of  Ind.  Europ.  Cases,  7.  III.  3.  [2.]  Q.  C.  Spec.  IX. 
425. 

ifRob.  Gr.  Lex.  New  Testament. 


TO  THE  MODE  OF   BAPTISM.  51 

III.  The  allusions  made  in  the  New  Testament  to  the 
mode  of  performing  baptism,  are  such  as  to  negative  the 
idea  of  immersion.  Christ,  a  short  time  before  his  as- 
cension, promised  his  disciples  that  they  "  should  be  bap- 
tized with  the  Holy  Ghost,  not  many  days  hence."  (Acts 
i.  5.)  This  promise  was  fulfilled  upon  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost, and  at  subsequent  times  upon  those  who  afterwards  be- 
lieved, at  the  "  laying  on  of  an  Apostle's  hands."  The  lan- 
guage chosen  by  the  sacred  historian,  in  giving  an  account  of 
this  baptism,  is  descriptive  of  his  view  of  it.  Thus  when  the 
Holy  Ghost  fell  upon  the  Gentiles,  or  when  they  were  "  bap- 
tized with  the  Holy  Ghost,"  he  says,  "  they  of  the  circumcis- 
ion were  astonished,  because  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was 
POURED  OUT  upon  the  Gentiles  also."  {Acts  x.  45.)  This, 
we  believe,  is  the  only  direct  reference  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, to  the  mode  in  which  baptism  of  any  kind  was  perform- 
ed, and  in  this  the  act  was  that  of  pouring,  or,  as  the  lan- 
guage was  figurative,  and  as  every  metaphor  must  have  some- 
thing to  sustain  it,  the  unavoidable  inference  is,  that  the  in- 
strument WITH  which  baptism  was  performed,  was  poured 
upon  those  who  were  baptized.  Hence,  the  necessary  con- 
clusion is,  that  baptism  was  probably  performed  by  pouring, 
of  which  sprinkling  is  a  species. 

We  have  now  gone  over  with  the  Bible,  and  examined 
every  place  where  either  hapto  or  haptizo  occur,  (unless  some 
instance  has  been  overlooked  by  accident,  which  we  presume 
is  not  the  case,)  and  have  found,  that  out  of  twenty-three  in- 
stances where  bapto  occurs,  it  signifies  to  immerse  but  twice  ; 
and  that  in  seventy  places  where  baptizo  is  found,  there  is  not 
ONE  where  it  means  to  immerse.  We  are  therefore  author- 
ized to  say,  that  whatever  may  be  the  classic  meaning  of 
these  words,  they  do  not  in  Scripture  signify  to  immerse.  If 
a]iy  are  disposed  to  cavil  at  our  conclusions,  we  beg  leave  to 
ask  the  following  questions  : 


52  BURIED  IN  BAPTISM 

1.  Is  there  any  place  in  the  Bible  where  either  of  these 
words  occur,  not  referred  to  in  the  foregoing  ?  If  so,  where 
is  it,  and  what  is  its  meaning  ? 

2.  Have  we  mis-quoted  or  mis-construed  any  passage  above 
referred  to  ?     If  so,  what  one,  or  ones  ? 

3.  Is  there  any  proof,  out  of  the  Bible,  as  to  the  mode  in 
which  baptism  was  administered  by  the  Apostles  ?  If  so, 
what? 

4.  If  these  questions  are  all  answered  in  the  negative,  on 
what  foundation  can  any  one  rest  the  claim,  that  immersion 
alone  is  baptism  ? 


CHAPTER  VI. 

MODE  OF   BAPTISM  CONTINUED. 

Having  shown  that  the  Scrijytural  usage  of  the  words  de- 
noting baptism,  and  the  mode  of  their  construction  with  other 
words,  as  well  as  the  direct  allusions  to  the  rite,  are  all  op- 
posed to  the  supposed  primitive  practice  of  immersion,  in  the 
modern  sense,  that  is,  by  total  submersion,  we  shall  now  con- 
sider two  forms  of  expression,  on  which  some  rely  with  great 
confidence  :  "  Buried  with  him  in  baptism,"  and  "  they  went 
down  into  the  water,  and  they  came  up  out  of  the  water." 

I.  "Buried  with  him  in  baptism."  1.  The  phrase,  ^^  bu- 
ried in  baptism,"  occurs  in  the  New  Testament  twice  :  in  Ro- 
mans vi.  4,  and  Colossians  ii.  12.  Of  each  by  itself.  In  the 
fifth  chapter  of  Romans,  St.  Paul  having  shown,  that  God 
overrules  the  wicked  acts  of  men  to  his  own  glory,  and  that 
where  sin  had  reigned,  grace  did  now  abound,  proceeds,  in 
the  sixth  chapter,  to  answer  an  objection  which  might  be 
made  :  "  What  shall  we  say  then  ?"  that  is,  if  grace  now 
abounds  where  sin  formerly  reigned,  "  Shall  we  continue  in  sin, 


MEANING  OF  THE  PHRASE.  53 

that  grace  may  abound  ?"  To  this  very  natural  inquiry  he  re- 
plies, "  God  forbid  ;"  and  to  show  the  impossibility,  yea,  the 
absurdity  of  the  supposition,  he  asks,  "  Hoio  shall  vjc  who 
ARE  DEAD  to  sin,  live  any  longer  therein  V  This  inquiry 
of  the  Apostle,  is  equivalent  to  a  positive  affirmation,  that 
every  Christian  is  actually  dead  to  sin.  ,  He  then  proceeds  to 
show  the  reason  why  Christians  are  dead  to  sin.  "  Know  ye 
not,"  says  he,  "  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Je- 
sus Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  DEATH  ?"  Now,  in  order 
to  make  the  Apostle  consistent  with  himself,  we  must  give 
this  question  such  a  construction  as  shall  make  it  support  the 
preceding.  The  death  of  Christ,  then,  into  which  we  are 
baptized,  must  be  such  a  death  as  is  described  in  the  prece- 
ding verse  :  "  a  death  unto  sin"  That  this  was  the  Apostle's 
meaning,  he  himself  has  expressly  told  us.  Thus,  in  verse 
10th,  he  says,  "  for  in  that  Christ  died,  he  died  unto  sin"  He 
then  proceeds  to  write  the  passage  on  which  the  whole  of  the 
argument  turns  : 

"  Therefore,  (that  is,  because  he  died  unto  sin,)  we  are  bu- 
ried with  him  by  baptism  into  a  death  to  sin,  that  like  as 
Christ  was  raised  iqj  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father, 
even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life."  (Romans 
vi.  4.)* 

That  the  whole  effect  of  the  death  and  burial  here  spoken 
of,  was  spiritual,  no  one  denies  ;  but  some  claim,  and  many 
have  admitted,  that  there  is  here  an  allusion  to  the  mode  of  ad- 
ministering baptism  by  immersion.  The  sense  of  the  first 
part  of  this  passage,  according  to  this  interpretation,  is, 
"  Therefore,  as  Christ  was  buried  in  the  earth,  so  in  a 
similar    manner  are   we    buried    in    water    at   our  baptism." 


*  This  verse  is  quoted  by  several  of  the  ancient  Baptismal  Liturgies,  but 
most  of  them  omit  the  first  part  of  it.  Thus  it  is  vi^ith  the  Greek,  Syriac, 
Jerusalem,  and  Antiochan,  Ass.  II.  132,  139,  222,  250. 


54  NO  ANALOGY  BETWEEN 

To  this  construction,  there  are  several  insurmountable  ob- 
jections. 

(1.)  The  Greek  word  sunetephemen,  translated  '^buried 
with  him,^^  will  not  admit  that  construction,  without  doing  vio- 
lence to  the  language.  "  Su?ie,  in  composition,  implies  society, 
companionship,  consort,  vnih,  in  connection  with."*  In  the 
classic  writers,  this  word  is  used  to  denote  being  buried  in  the 
same  grave,  as  in  Herodotus,  suntaphentes ,  (v.  5,)  "  the  wife  is 
buried  with  the  husband."!  To  give,  therefore,  the  phrase, 
buried  with  him,  the  sense  of  buried  in  like  manner  as  he 
was,  when  the  modes  of  burial  were  confessedly  unlike,  is  to 
change  the  meaning  of  the  original,  if  not  to  make  nonsense. 
Besides,  if  this  verse  determines  the  mode  of  baptism,  it  must 
also  determine  the  mode  of  the  resurrection,  which  no  one 
pretends. 

(2.)  But,  second,  there  is  no  such  similarity  as  is  claimed. 
The  construction  which  assumes  that  the  Apostle  alluded  to 
an  actual  external  and  physical  burial  of  the  person  under 
water,  in  the  act  of  immersion,  assumes  that  the  burial  of 
Christ  was  like  the  ordinary  burials  of  modern  days,  where 
the  person  is  covered  with  the  earth  in  which  he  is  buried. 
Now  Christ  was  not  so  buried,  his  body  being  simply  laid  in 
the  chamber  of  "  a  sepulchre,"  (Luke  xxiii.  33  ;)  and  there 
is  no  analogy  whatever,  between  the  act  of  laying  away  a 
body  in  the  tomb,  and  the  act  of  plunging  the  person  under 
water,  so  that  there  is  no  such  analogy  between  these  acts,  as 
this  interpretation  supposes. 

(3.)  The  language  used  in  the  latter  part  of  the  same  verse, 
is  inconsistent  with  the  idea  that  the  Apostle  had  an  actual, 
physical  burial  in  his  mind.  By  every  rule  of  grammar,  and 
upon  every  principle   of  rhetoric,  the  diiferent  parts  of  a  fig- 

*  Rob.  Gr.  Lex.  p.  786.     BuU.  Gr.  Gram.  §  147.  2.  n.  11. 
t  See  also  authorities  cited  Hob.  Gr.  Lex.  in  loco. 


BURYING  AND  BAPTIZING.  55 

ure  should  correspond.  Now  if  t^e  Apostle  had  been  intent 
on  the  mode  of  baptism,  and  had  known  that  mode  was  by  immer- 
sion, and  from  this  had  drawn  the  metaphor  in  this  verse,  he 
would  have  said,  "  Therefore  we  are  buried  with  him  by  bap- 
tism into  death,  that  in  like  manner  as  he  was  raised  from  the 
dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  so  also  we  should  be  raised 
to  newness  of  life."  From  this  it  is  evident,  that  it  was  not 
the  burial  on  which  the  Apostle  dwelt,  but  the  death  to  sin, 
which  every  true  believer  undergoes.  It  should  also  be  re- 
marked, that  if  the  Apostle  had  such  a  physical  burial  in  his 
mind,  as  is  pretended,  then  baptism  must  of  necessity  be  a 
saving  ordinance,  that  is,  the  mere  act  of  receiving  baptism 
would  procure  pardon  of  sin.  This  conclusion  is  inevitable, 
for,  if  "  we  are  buried  in  water  at  baptism,  in  order  that  we 
may  be  raised  to  newness  of  life,"  then,  such  a  burial,  if  it  has 
its  legitimate  effect,  must  enable  us  to  walk  in  such  newness 
of  life.  Either,  therefore,  it  must  be  allowed  that  baptism 
does,  of  itself,  procure  salvation  for  us,  or  the  idea  that  a  phys- 
ical burial  is  denoted  in  this  place,  must  be  given  up. 

2.  A  similar  form  of  expression  occurs  in  Colossians, 
which,  in  connection  with  what  precedes,  reads  as  follows  : 

"  Ye  are  complete  in  Christ,  who  is  the  head  of  all  princi- 
pality and  power ;  in  whom  also  ye  are  circumcised  with  the 
circumcision  made  without  hands,  in  putting  off  the  body  of 
the  sins  of  the  flesh,  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ ;  buried 
with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  also  ye  are  risen  with  him 
through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God,  who  hath  raised, 
him  from  the  dead."     (Col.  ii.  10—12.) 

In  these  verses  there  is  a  direct  reference  to  two  distinct 
rites,  circumcision  and  baptism  ;  and  consequently,  both  must 
be  construed  alike.  Now  it  is  sometimes  claimed,  that  when 
the  Apostle  speaks  of  being  "  buried  with  him  in  baptism,"  he 
alludes  to  an  actual  and  physical  burial  of  the  person  under 
water.     But  we  have  already  shown  that  this  form  of  expres- 


56  BAPTISM  AND  CIRCUMCISION. 

sioii  will  not  bear  that  construction.  Besides,  if  the  allusion 
to  baptism  is  to  be  construed  as  having  reference  to  an  actual 
burial,  as  the  mode  of  baptism,  then  the  allusion  to  circumcis- 
ion must  have  a  similar  reference  to  the  actual  mode  of  per- 
forming it.  This,  however,  can  not  be  allowed,  as  the  lan- 
guage of  the  Apostle  confines  the  circumcision  to  ^putting 
off^  [apekdusei,)  or  more  properly,  "  a  renunciation*  of  the  sins 
of  the  flesh  in  [en)  the  circumcision  of  Christ."  Now  there 
is  not  the  remotest  analogy  between  the  mode  of  an  actual 
physical  circumcision,  and  the  metaphorical  and  spiritual  cir- 
cumcision ;  the  whole  resemblance  being  in  its  effects  ;  for  as 
a  physical  circumcision  is  the  taking  away  of  the  impurities 
of  the  natural  man,  so  a  spiritual  circumcision,  is  a  putting 
away  of  the  impurities  of  the  spiritual  man.f 

The  same  rule  of  construction  must  be  applied  to  the  other 
part  of  the  Apostle's  argument,  "  buried  with  him  in  baptism." 
We  are  not,  therefore,  to  understand  him  as  alluding  to  a, phys- 
ical burial,  as  the  unity  of  his  argument  will  not  allow  it ;  but 
as  referring  to  a  spiritual  burial  "  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh," 
which  were  put  off  in  our  spiritual  circumcision.  No  refer- 
ence whatever,  is  therefore  made  to  the  fnode  either  of  cir- 
cumcision or  baptism,  the  effect  being  the  thing  the  Apostle  in- 
tended to  bring  into  view.  But  further,  we  are  said  in  this 
place  not  only  to  be  buried  with  him,  but  also  to  be  "  raised 
with  him."  Now  in  no  sense  is  it  true  that  we  are  raised 
with  him  in  baptism.  Yet  if  this  might  ever  be  true,  it  could 
not  be  admitted  in  this  place,  as  the  means  by  which,  or  the 
immediate  and  efl^cient  cause  through  which,  we  are  raised 
from   this  burial,  is  faith.     "  Buried  with  him  in   baptism  ; 

*  Rob.  Gr.  Lex.  p.  74. 

t  President  Beecher  has  undertaken  to  show,  that  baptizo,  in  the  New 
Testament,  always  signifies  "to  purify  or  cleanse  thoroughly,  without  any 
reference  to  the  mode  in  which  it  is  done.*'  Bib.  Rep.  2d  series,  iii.  pp.  40 — 
(30,  32:2—371  ;  v.  21— J 7  ;  vi.  2S— 5-5. 


"  WENT   DOWN    INTO   THE   WATER."  57 

wherein  ye  are  also  risen  with  him  through  the  faith  of  the 
operation  of  God."  Here,  then,  we  have  a  burial  and  resur- 
rection answering  to  each  other,  and  a  resurrection  which  is 
purely  spiritual,  such  an  one  as  would  necessarily  follow  from 
the  spiritual  circumcision  already  described.  Inasmuch  then, 
as  the  resurrection  was  spiritual,  the  burial  must  have  been 
spiritual ;  and  as  no  allusion  whatever  is  made  to  the  mode  of 
circumcision,  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  infer,  that  any  allusion  is 
made  to  the  mode  of  baptism.  We  see,  therefore,  that  the 
phrase,  "  buried  with  him  inibaptism,"  does  not,  and  can  not 
authorize  the  inference,  that  baptism  was  performed  by  im- 
mersion. 

II.  We  shall  now  proceed  to  examine  the  meaning  of  the 
phrases,  "  they  went  down  into  the  water^''  and  "  they  came  up 
out  of  the  water r 

As  great  stress  is  laid  upon  these  forms  of  expression,  to 
prove  that  immersion  was  the  Apostolic  mode  of  baptism,  we 
shall  briefly  inquire  whether  they  authorize  the  inference.  It 
is  sufl[icient  in  the  English  language  to  justify  the  expression, 
they  "  go  into  the  water,"  that  persons  should  merely  step 
into  the  water.  Indeed,  our  phrases,  "  he  is  in  the  water," 
and  "  he  has  gone  into  the  water,"  do  not,  without  some  quali- 
fying words,  imply  that  the  person  is  immersed.^  or  put  all  over 
under  water."  So  when  a  person  who  has  stepped  into  the 
water,  steps  out  again,  he  "  comes  out  of  the  water,"  or,  if  he 
stepped  into  a  brook,  "  he  comes  up  out  of  the  brook,  or  up  out 
of  the  water."  These  are  common  sense  and  every-day 
modes  of  expression,  found  alike  in  the  speech  of  the  unlet- 
tered rustic,  and  in  the  composition  of  the  classic  scholar. 
These  forms  of  expression  will  not,  therefore,  sustain  the  in- 
terpretation sought  to  be  given  them,  unless  the  genius  and 
idiom  of  the  Greek  language  differs  from  ours  in  this  respect, 
concerning  which  we  shall  now  inquire. 

(1.)  And  first,  does  the  phrase,   ^^they  went  down  into  the 
6 


58  "  CAME  UP  OUT  OF  THE  WATER." 

water,^^  denote  that  "  they  went  down  under  the  water  ?"  To 
this  inquiry  there  can  be  but  one  answer,  and  that  in  the  neg- 
ative. The  Greek  preposition  eis,  denotes  into,  but  never 
under,  which  idea  is  expressed  in  Greek,  by  hypo.  If,  there- 
fore, St.  Luke,  in  giving  an  account  of  the  baptism  of  the 
Eunuch  by  Philip,  (Acts  viii.  38,)  had  intended  to  say  that  the 
Eunuch  was  immersed,  he  would  have  said,  "  he  went  down 
under  the  water,"  and  not  "  into  the  water."  But  the  narrative 
will  not  allow  this  alteration,  for  it  is  said,  that  "  both  went 
down  into  the  water,  hoth  Philip  and  the  Eunuch."  If,  there- 
fore, the  narrative  proves  that  the  Eunuch  went  down  under 
the  water,  it  proves  that  Philip  also  went  down  under  the 
water,  and  that  Philip  was  as  really  immersed  as  the  Eunuch 
himself.  Besides,  katahaino,  from  baino,  "  to  go,  or  walk,''^  and 
kata,  "  down,^''  implies  that  they  walked  down  into  the  water, 
as  a  person  would  now  walk  down  into  a  brook,  and  that  after 
having  so  walked  into  the  water,  Philip  babtized  the  Eunuch, 
but  whether  by  immersion  or  not,  is  not  intimated. 

(2.)  Second,  does  the  phrase  "  they  came  up  out  of  the  wa- 
ter," denote  that  "  they  came  up  from  under  the  water  ?"  This 
question  must  also  be  answered  in  the  negative,  as  anabaino, 
to  come  up,  to  ascend,  is  the  opposite  of  katabaino,  to  go 
down,  to  descend ;  and  consequently,  can  denote  only  an  ascent 
from  a  descent  previously  made.  Nor  can  the  preposition 
ek,  out  of,  from,  authorize  any  other  inference,  for  though 
used  in  Acts,  (viii.  39,)  in  the  account  of  the  baptism  of  the 
Eunuch,  its  place  is  supplied  in  Matthew,  (iii.  16,)  in  the  ac- 
count of  the  baptism  of  our  Saviour,  by  apo,  which  has  the 
general  meaning  oi  from,  away  from  *     The  passage  in  Mat- 

♦  The  Apostolic  Liturgy,  so  called,  in  the  Syriac,  represents  Christ  at  his 
baptism,  as  standing,  and  "  bowing  his  hia.d"  into  the  water.  Ass.  I. 
2-57,  11.  287.  The  monuments  of  the  Greek  Church  represent  Christ  and 
John  as  standing  in  the  water,  and  John  pouring  water  on  the  head  of  Je- 
sus. This  is  said  on  the  authority  of  Mr.  E.  A.  Sophocles,  a  native  Greek, 
of  ^eal  learning  and  accuracy. 


PRIMITIVE  WRITERS  ON  BAPTISM.  59 

thew,  (iii.  1 6,)  therefore,  might  properly  be  translated  :  "  And 
Jesus,  when  he  was  baptized,  went  up  straightway  from  the 
water ;"  that  is,  he  ascended  from  the  place  where  he  stood 
when  he  was  baptized,  which  might  have  been  either  on  the 
bank  of  the  Jordan,  or  in  the  edge  of  the  river.  But  in  nei- 
ther case  does  it  furnish  any  ground  to  infer  the  practice  of 
immersion.  We  have  now  examined  all  the  strong  arguments 
and  proof  texts,  which  are  urged  in  favor  of  the  exclusive  va- 
lidity of  immersion,  and  have  found,  that  not  one  of  the  argu- 
ments are  sound,  and  not  one  of  the  positions,  tenable. 

III.  The  usage  of  the  primitive  Christians  is  such  as  to  neg- 
ative the  idea  of  immersion. 

BaRxNabas.  One  of  the  earliest  Fathers,  was  Barnabas, 
supposed  by  many  to  be  the  same  as  the  Apostle  Barnabas, 
though  probably  without  sufficient  reason.  He  wrote,  as  ap- 
pears from  his  epistle,  (which  is  cited  by  Clement,  of  Alex- 
andria,* and  by  Tertullian,  in  the  second  century,!  by  Origen,J 
in  the  third,  and  by  many  subsequent  writers,)  soon  after  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem.  The  whole  of  his  Epistle  is  in  a 
strain  of  allegory ;  but  we  shall  copy  all  that  appears  to  have 
any  bearing  on  the  mode  of  baptism. 

"  Let  us  now  inquire  whether  the  Lord  foretold  any  thing 
of  the  water  and  the  cross.  Now  of  the  water,  it  is  written 
to  Israel,  how  that  they  would  not  receive  that  baptism.,  {bap- 
tisma,)  which  brings  to  remission  of  sins,  but  would  institute 
another  to  themselves  ;  as  saith  the  Prophet :  '  Be  aston- 
ished, O  Heaven  !  and  let  the  earth  tremble  at  it,  because  this 
people  have  done  two  great  and  wicked  things ;  they  have 
left  me  the  living  fountain,  and  dug  for  themselves  broken  cis- 
terns.'"    (c.  10.) 

In  this  place,  baptism  has  no  direct  reference  to  any  mode 


*  Stro.  ii,  p.  410.     Stro.  v.  p.  571.  f  De  Pud.  c.  20. 

X  Cont.  Cel.  L.  i. 


60  TESTIMONY  OF   BARNABAS. 

of  washing,  but  refers  to  the  partaking  of  that  "  well  or  foun- 
tain of  living  water^''  of  which  every  man,  who  desires  eter- 
nal life,  must  drink.  (John  iv.  10 — 15.)  If  it  has  any  indi- 
rect reference  to  the  mode  of  washings  it  is  to  those  ceremonial 
washings  which  denote  purification.  That  these  were  not 
performed  by  immersion,  is  evident  from  the  language  of  Bar- 
nabas, as  well  as  from  what  we  have  before  said  on  this  point. 
In  c.  8,  he  explains  the  Jewish  mode  of  purification,  described 
in  Numbers,  (xix.)  Thus,  he  says,  "  The  heifer  to  be  offered 
by  wicked  men,  is  Jesus  Christ;  but  the  young  men  [in 
Numb.  xix.  the  clean  men]  that  performed  the  sprinkling, 
[rantizontes,)  [i.  e.  of  the  people,  that  they  should  be  clean 
from  their  sins,]  signify  those  who  preach  to  us  the  remission 
of  sins  and  the  purification  of  the  heart,  to  whom  the  Lord 
gave  authority  to  preach  his  gospel,  being  at  the  beginning, 
twelve." 

Here,  then,  we  have  "remission  of  sins  and  purification  of 
heart,"  wrought  by  "  the  sprinkling  of  the  twelve,"  that  is. 
Apostles.  So  in  c.  5.  (of  the  Old  Latin  Version,  the  Greek 
of  that  place  being  lost,)  it  is  said,  that  "  the  Lord  gave  his 
body  to  destruction,  that  we  might  be  sanctified,  through  the 
remission  of  sins,  which  is  by  the  sprinkling  (sparsione)  of 
his  blood."  In  all  these  cases  "  remission  of  sins  and  purifi- 
cation of  heart,"  are  said  to  be  wrought  by  sprinkling  ;  and 
as  these  purifications  are  also  called  baptisms,  the  necessary 
inference  is,  that  baptism,  in  the  days  of  Barnabas,  was  per- 
formed by  sprinkling,  or,  as  the  words  may  signify,  by  pouring. 
There  are,  however,  two  other  passages  in  the  Epistle  of  this 
writer,  which  have  been  claimed  in  favor  of  immersion,  and 
we  give  them  both  entire  : 

"  Consider  how  he  has  joined  the  cross  and  the  water,  for 
this  he  saith :   Blessed  are  they  who  when  they  have  trusted 

in  the  cross,  descend  into  the  water And  there  was  a 

river  running  on  the  right  hand,  and  beautiful  trees  grew  up 


TESTIMONY  OF   HERMAS.  61 

by  it,  and  he  that  shall  eat  of  them  shall  live  forever.  The 
signification  of  which  is,  that  we  descend  into  the  water  full  of 
sins  and  pollutions,  but  ascend,  bearing  fruit,  having  in  our 
hearts  hope  and  fear  in  Jesus  by  the  Spirit."     (c.  10.) 

In  respect  to  the  sentences  in  these  extracts  printed  in 
italics,  we  need  only  say,  that  they  are  quoted  from  Acts, 
(viii.  38,  39,)  where  this  language  is  applied  to  both  Philip 
and  the  Eunuch,  and  must,  therefore,  be  construed  in  a  similar 
manner.  We  need,  therefore,  only  refer  our  readers  to  the 
remarks  we  have  before  made  upon  that  place,  to  show  that 
this  does  not  denote  immersion.  We  will  add,  however,  the 
remark,  that  these  phrases  seem  to  authorize  the  inference, 
that  the  candidate  for  baptism  took  his  stand  on,  or  more  prob- 
ably in,  the  edge  of  the  water  in  which  he  was  baptized,  when 
baptized  in  a  river  or  brook,  and  that  the  water  was  then 
poured  upon  him. 

Hermas.  Another  allegorical  writer  of  the  early  ages  of 
Christianity,  was  Hermas.  He  has  been  supposed  by  some 
to  belong  to  the  first  century ;  but  this  is  probably  a  mistake. 
He  seems  to  have  written  a  little  before  the  middle  of  the 
second  century.  He  represents  the  Church  under  the  simili- 
tude of  "  a  great  tower  built  upon  the  water,  with  bright  square 
stones."*  The  building  of  the  tower  he  describes  as  per- 
formed by  six  young  men,  or  angels  ;  who  first  "  drew  up  from 
the  deep,  stones  so  well  polished,  that  they  exactly  fitted  to- 
gether, so  that  the  tower  seemed  to  be  built  of  one  stone. "t 
The  stones  thus  drawn  up  from  the  deep,  denoted  men  of  the 
former  ages,  "  who  died  in  righteousness  and  great  purity,  only 
the  seal  [of  baptism]  was  wanting  to  them,  without  w^hich 
they  could  not  enter  the  kingdom  of  God. "J  With  them  also 
ascended  certain  other  stones,  which  represented  the  Apostles 


*  L.  i.  Vis.  iii.  c.  2,  3.  f  L-  i-  Vis.  iii.  c  2.,  L.  iii.  Sim.  ix.  c.  16. 

4:L.  iii.  Sim.  ix.  c.  16. 

6* 


62  TESTIMONY  OF  HERMAS. 

and  teachers,  who  [having  received  the  seal  of  the  Son  of 
God,  and]  dying  after  they  had  received  his  faith  and  power, 
preached  to  them  who  were  dead,  and  gave  them  the  same 
seal,"  that  is,  "  the  seal  of  baptism."  "These  [i.  e.  the  Apos- 
tles and  teachers]  went  down  into  the  water  with  them,  [i.  e. 
those  who  died  in  righteousness  and  great  purity,]  and  again 
came  up.  But  these  [the  Apostles,  &c.]  went  down  alive, 
and  came  up  alive ;  whereas  those  who  were  before  dead, 
went  down  dead,  but  came  up  alive."* 

Thus  far,  there  is  nothing  which  at  first  sight  appears  to 
bear  directly  upon  the  question  under  consideration.  Yet  it 
is  not  irrelevant,  for  we  have  seen  that  those  righteous  men 
who  died  before  the  coming  of  Christ,  are  represented  as  de- 
scending into  the  water,  dead,  that  is,  not  having  received  the 
seal  of  the  Son  of  God  in  baptism  ;  while  the  "  Apostles  who 
had  received  this  seal,  it  is  said,  descended  into  the  water 
alive"  and  then  administered  this  rite  to  those  who  had  gone 
down  dead.  From  this,  therefore,  we  learn  the  important 
fact,  that  the  "  descent  into  the  water,"  was  not,  in  the  opinion 
of  Hermas,  baptism.  This  is  also  in  perfect  conformity  with 
the  baptism  of  the  Eunuch  by  Philip.  In  the  language  of 
Hermas,  Philip,  who  had  received  the  seal  of  the  Son  of 
God,  in  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  and  was  therefore  alive, 
went  down  into  the  water  with  the  Eunuch,  who,  not  having 
received  that  seal,  was  dead ;  and  while  both  were  in  the 
water,  the  rite  of  baptism  was  administered.  In  both  of  these 
cases,  the  descent  into  the  water  was  no  part  of  the  baptism. 

The  building  of  the  tower  proceeded  thus  far,  when  "  the 
stones  ceased  to  ascend  from  the  deep,  and  they  which  built, 
rested  a  little.  Then  those  six  men  commanded  the  multitude 
that  they  should  bring  stones  out  of  the  mountains  for  the 
building  of  the    tower.     So   they  cut  out    stones    of  divers 

*  L.  iii.  Sim.  ix.  c.  16. 


TESTIMONY  OF  HERMAS.  63 

colors,  from  all  the  mountains,  and  brought  them  to  the  vir- 
gins, which,  when  they  received,  being  [round,  were  cut  away 
and  made  square,*  and  delivered  to]  those  who  built  the 
tower."t  But  the  stones  which  had  been  so  cut,  and  which 
represented  the  persons  then  living,  and  who  were  to  compose 
a  part  of  the  tower  of  the  Church,  were  required  "  to  be 
cleansed  before  they  could  be  put  in  the  building,"^  which 
was  done  by  the  virgins,  as  follows  :  "  Then  those  virgins 
took  besoms,  and  cleared  all  the  place  around,  and  took  away 
all  the  rubbish,  and  sprinkled  [sparserunt)  water,  and  the  place 
became  delightful, 'and  the  tower  beauteous."^ 

Here  we  have  a  cleansing,  which  can  be  applied  only  to 
baptism,  and  that  performed  by  sprinkling,  or  pourijig,  spargo 
being  capable  of  both  senses.  As  far,  therefore,  as  any  in- 
ference can  be  drawn  from  Hermas,  as  to  the  mode  of  baptism, 
it  is  most  distinctly  in  favor  of  applying  the  instrument  used 
in  performing  the  rite,  to  the  person,  and  not  by  applying  the 
person  to  the  instrument,  as  is  done  in  cases  of  total  immer- 
sion. There  are,  however,  a  couple  of  passages  which  are 
usually  cited  in  favor  of  immersion ;  both  of  which  are  quo- 
tations of  the  language  of  the  Acts,  (viii.  38,  39,)  already 
spoken  of,  and  must,  therefore,  be  construed  in  accordance 
with  what  has  already  been  said  of  that  place.  We  give 
them,  however,  entire,  that  our  readers  may  be  able  to  see  the 
whole  evidence  on  which  the  claim  of  the  exclusive  validity 
of  immersion  rests.  The  first  passage  ||  is  used  in  reference 
to  the  righteous  men  who  died  before  the  coming  of  Christ, 
of  which  we  have  already  spoken. 

"  Before  a  man  receives  the  name  of  the  Son  of  God,  he 
is  ordained  unto  death,  but  when  he  receives  that  seal,  he  is 
freed  from  death,  and  assigned  unto  life.     Now  that  seal  is 


*L.  i.  Vis.  iii.  c  6.         fL.  iii.  Sim.  ix.  c.  4.  :{:L.  iii,  Sim.  ix.  c.  7. 

%  L.  iii.  Sim.  ix.  c.  10.  |lL.  iii.  Sim.  ix.  c.  16, 


64  TESTIMONY  OF  JUSTYN   MARTYR. 

the  water,  into   which  men  descend  ordained  unto  death,  but 
ascend  assigned  unto  life." 

The  other  passage  is  in  the  Commands,*  "  I  have  heard 
from  certain  teachers  that  there  is  no  other  xepentance  than 
that,  when  we  descend  into  the  loater  and  receive  remission  of 
sins." 

Upon  this,  we  remark,  that  as  the  whole  of  Hermas  is  alle- 
gorical, it  is  not  certain  that  the  water  is  to  be  understood  lit- 
erally ;  the  more  so,  as  the  water  into  which  men  are  repre- 
sented as  descending,  is  that  "  by  which  their  lives  are  saved."! 
Besides,  the  descent  into  the  water  is  not  baptism,  in  the  lan- 
guage of  Hermas,  as  we  have  seen  that  he  speaks  of  men  de- 
scending into  the  water  who  had  not  received  the  seal  of  bap- 
tism, and  of  others  descending,  who  had  received  that  seal.| 
There  is  not,  therefore,  in  these  passages,  any  thing  which  at 
all  militates  against  the  conclusion  before  drawn  from  the  lan- 
guage of  Hermas. 

Justin  Martyr.  Next  to  Hermas,  and  probably  cotem- 
porary  with  him,  was  the  learned  and  accomplished  Justin, 
the  Martyr.  He  was  a  native  and  resident  in  Syria,  and  con- 
sequently acquainted  with  the  common  or  spoken  Greek  of 
Palestine,  and  had  been  educated  in  the  most  refined  schools 
of  classic  Uterature.  He  is,  therefore,  a  most  important  wit- 
ness as  to  the  mode  of  baptism.  The  most  full  description  he 
has  given,  is  contained  in  his  first  Apology,  or  Defense  of  the 
Christian  Religion,  addressed  to  the  Roman  Emperor,  about 
A.  D.  150.§ 

"  We  then  lead  them  [the  candidates  for  baptism]  to  a 
place  where  there  is  water,  and  they  are  regenerated,  {ana- 
gennethemen,)  in  the  same  mode  of  regeneration  as  we  were 

♦L.  ii.  Com.  iv.  c.  3.  fL.  i.  Vis.  iii.  c.  3. 

4:L.  iii.  Sim.  ix.  c.  16. 

§  We  quote  from  p.  94  of  the  Paris  edition  ;  p.  89  in  the  edition  of  Tbirl- 
by,  Lond.  1722,  c.  79,  in  the  translation  of  Chevaher. 


TESTIMONY  OF  JUSTIN  MARTYR.  65 

regenerated;  for  they  are  washed  [loutron)  in  water,  in  the 
name  of  God,  the  Father  and  Lord  of  the  Universe,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  for  Christ  has  said,  except 
ye  he  regenerated,  {anagennethese^)  ye  can  not  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God."  He  also  quotes,  in  immediate  connection 
with  this,  and  as  bearing  directly  upon  the  same  point,  Isaiah 
i.  16  :  "  Wash  you,  {lousathe,)  make  you  clean."  "  And  this 
washing,''^  {loutron,)  he  says,*  is  "  called  illumination." 

That  this  is  a  description  of  baptism,  admits  not  of  doubt. 
There  is,  however,  a  remark  which  naturally  arises  from  the 
language  of  Justin,  altogether  too  important  to  be  omitted  in 
this  place.  It  is  claimed  and  admitted,  that,  in  classic  Greek, 
haptizo  more  generally  denotes  a  washing  performed  by  ap- 
plying the  thing  baptized  to  the  element  in  which  the  baptism 
was  performed,  and  that  louo  is  the  proper  word  to  be  used  to 
signify  washing  of  a  general  nature,  or,  more  properly,  when 
it  is  performed  by  applying  the  water  to  the  person  washed. 
Now  as  Justin  was  a  thorough  classic  scholar,  and  also  fa- 
miliarly acquainted  with  the  common  spoken  Greek  of  Pales- 
tine, it  is  evident  that  he  is  the  most  competent  witness  that 
can  be  produced,  concerning  the  common  meaning  of  baptizo, 
in  Palestinian  Greek,  in  accordance  with  which  it  is  used  in 
Scripture,  as  is  now  admitted  by  all  critics. | 

The  first  thing,  then,  that  we  observe,  is,  that  Justin,  in 
writing  to  the  Roman  Emperor,  who  was  also  thoroughly 
versed  in  classic  Greek,  but  knew  nothing  of  any  peculiarities 
of  the  dialects  of  Palestine,  never  uses  baptizo,  to  denote  bap- 
tism, which  word,  as  understood  by  the  Emperor  Pius,  would 
signify,  that  the  candidate  was  put  into  the  water  ;  but  always 
uses  louo,  from  which  Pius  would  understand  that  the  water 
was  applied  to  the  person  baptized.  Hence,  if  baptism  was 
performed  b)-  immersion  in  the  days  of  Justin,  he  intentionally 

*  Pag-e  91,  or  90,  and  c.  80.  %  Stuart  Hel).  Gr. 


66  TESTIMONY  OF  JUSTYN  MARTYR. 

used  language,  which  he  knew  would  mislead  the  emperor, 
and  that,  too,  when  he  could  gain  nothing  by  it,  and  could 
have  no  motive  to  do  it.  Not  so,  however,  with  Justin,  when 
he  writes  against  the  Jews,  who  were  familiar  with  all  the  pe- 
culiarities of  the  dialects  of  Palestine  ;  for  in  his  Dialogue 
with  Trypho  the  Jew,  he  uses  haptizo  and  louo  as  synonymous 
terms.*  The  authority  of  Justin,  therefore,  sustains  the  con- 
clusion that  we  have  before  drawn,  from  our  examination  of 
the  Scripture  usage,  that  haptizo  and  louo,  in  the  common 
Greek  of  Palestine,  were  words  of  similar  import ;  and  hence 
the  use  of  this  word  in  Scripture,  to  denote  baptism,  can  not 
even  raise  a  presumption  in  faA^or  of  immersion. 

But  there  is  another  passage  in  Justin,  still  more  decisive  ; 
one  in  which  he  expressly  declares  that  baptism  was  perform- 
ed by  sprinkling.  To  a  full  understanding  of  the  passage, 
we  must  bear  in  mind,  that  Justin,  in  his  Apology,  was  at- 
tempting to  show,  that  the  various  heathen  mysteries  were  im- 
itations of  the  rites  and  orrlinanoes  instituted  by  God;  that 
"  they  erroneously  imitated  what  was  really  performed,  be- 
cause they  did  not  perfectly  understand  the  prophecy."! 
Thus  he  says,  that  the  story  of  the  ascent  of  Bacchus  and  Bel- 
lerophon  into  heaven,  were  imitations  of  the  prophecies  con- 
cerning Christ,  as  also  some  of  the  stories  of  Hercules  and 
Esculapius,!  were  copied  from  the  character  of  the  same  being. 
So  also  he  says,  that  the  demons  raised  up  false  Christs,  to 
deceive  the  people, §  and  that  the  practices  of  the  priests 
were  imitations  of  what  Moses  did.||  Hence,  he  says  :  "  It 
is  not,  therefore,  that  we  hold  the  same  opinion  with  others, 
but  that  all  others  speak  in  imitation  [mimoumenoi)  of  ours."TF 


*  This   will  be   seen   by  eomparing  pp.    103,  164,  173,    174,  193,  194, 
Lond.  Ed.;    pp.  231,  232,  236,  240,  Par.  Ed. 

fC.  70.  :fC.  71.  §Cc.  73,  75.  ||  C  81. 

ire.  78,  p.  93.     Par.  Ed.,  Apol.  T. 


TESTIMONY  OF   CLEMENT  AND  TERTULLIAN.  67 

Then,   after  giving  the  account  of  baptism,  quoted  above,  he 
says  : 

"  This  washing  {loutron)  is  called  illumination,  since  the 
minds  of  those  who  are  thus  instructed,  are  enlightened. 
And  he  who  is  so  enlightened,  is  washed,  (louetai,)  i.  e.  bap- 
tized, also  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  crucified 
under  Pontius  Pilate,  and  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
who,  by  the  prophets,  foretold  all  things  concerning  Jesus. 
The  demons,  also,  who  heard  that  this  washing,  (loutron,)  i.  e. 
of  baptis?n,  was  predicted  by  the  prophet,  caused  that  those 
who  entered  into  their  holy  places,  and  were  about  to  ap- 
proach them,  to  offer  libations  and  the  fat  of  victims,  should 
SPRINKLE  {rantizein)  themselves." 

Two  things  are  expressly  asserted  by  Justin,  in  this  place  : 
(1,)  that  the  baptism  of  demons  was  hy  sprinkling,  and,  (2,) 
that  this  was  in  imitation  of  Christian  baptism.  Hence,  it 
necessarily  follows,  that  Christian  baptism  tvas  sometimes  at 
least  performed  by  sprinkling* 

Justin  also  distinguishes  the  "  going  down  into  the  water," 
from  the  baptism.  Thus  he  says,  that  "  Jesus  coming  to  the 
river  Jordan  when  John  was  baptizing,  he  (John)  went  down 
with  Jesus  into  the  water."! 

Clement,  of  Alexandria,  about  190.  From  him  we  learn 
that  baptism  was  then  denominated  charisma,  gift  of  grace, 
photisma,  illumination,  teleion,  perfection,  loutron,  washing,^ 
and  he  often  uses  loutron  himself,  to  signify  baptism. 

Tertullian.  We  proceed  to  examine  what  is  said  by 
Tertullian  as  to  the  mode  of  baptism.  But  before  Ave  do  this, 
we  must  premise  several  things:  (1.)  though  the  earliest  of 
the  Latin  Fathers,  he  was  a  Carthagenian  by  birth,  and  Latin 

*  St.  Cyprian,  A.  D.  256,  says,  the  sacrament  is  equally  efficacious, 
whether  the  person  be  plunged  in  water,  or  whether  it  be  sprinkled  upon 
iiim.     (Ep.  66.) 

tDial.  Tryph.  P.  II.  p.  331.  |Ped.  L.  i.  c.  6. 


68  TESTIMONY  OF  TERTULLIAN. 

was  not  his  mother  tongue.  Consequently  w  e  can  not  look  for 
that  nice  discrimination  in  the  choice  of  words,  we  should 
naturally  expect  in  a  native  Latin.  (2.)  Another  cause  of  ob- 
scurity in  the  writings  of  Tertullian,  is  to  be  found  in  the 
character  of  his  figures,  which  are  often  far-fetched  and  un- 
natural, and  frequently  clothed  in  high-sounding,  pompous  ep- 
ithets.* (3.)  Tertullian  led  the  way  in  adapting  the  Christ- 
ian literature  of  the  Greeks,  to  the  genius  of  the  Latin  tongue. f 
Bearing  this  in  mind,  we  may  observe,  that  Tertullian  uses 
several  words  to  denote  baptism.  (1.)  When  quoting  from 
the  Bible,  where  the  original  is  haptizo,  he  either  transfers 
the  word,  or  uses  tingo,  which,  Valpey|  says,  signifies  to  wet, 
dye,  tinge,  stain.^  Thus,  in  citing  the  command  to  the  Apos- 
tles, "  commanding  that  they  should  baptize  (tinguerent)  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost. "II  (2.)  When  speaking  of  baptism,  and  not  quoting 
from  the  Bible,  he  uses  tingo  much  oftener  than  any  other 
word.  Occasionally  he  uses  lavo,  "  to  wash,  bathe,  sprinkle  ;" 
mergo,  "  to  sink,  or  plunge,"  according  to  classic  usage,  but  to 
wash  simply,  in  vulgar  Latin,  to  which  Tertullian  approxi- 
mates ;  and  ahluo,  "  to  wash,  to  purify."  (3.)  He  also  de- 
notes baptism  by  aspcrgo,  "  to  sprinkle."  Thus  sj)eaking  of 
the  hypocrisy  of  those  who  desired  baptism  without  true  re- 
pentance, he  says,  "  No  man  should  grant  to  such  false  peni- 
tents, one  sjjrhikling  (asperginem)  of  water. "If  A  similar 
usage  occurs  in  c.  5,  of  his  treatise  On  Baptism.     From  all 

*  Dupin.  Hist.  Ecc.  Writ.  p.  S3.  f  Geis.  Ecc.  Hist.  Div.  iii.  $  G4. 

•jiEtym.  Die.  p.  175. 

§  And  Forcellini,  an  Italian  Lexicographer,  of  the  Latin  tongue,  (Lat. 
Die.,  2  vols.  4to.  Lond.,  1828,)  defines  it  by  to  dip,  immerse,  wet,  moisten, 
bathe,  and  gives  us  its  equivalent  in  Greek,  tcngo,  brccho,  raino,  bnpto.  The 
same  author  defines  mergo,  "  to  dip,  plunge,  sink,  immerse,  and  over- 
whelm." 

II  Adv.  Prax.  c.  2G,  &c. 

ITDe  Poenit.  c.  6. 


SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM.  69 

these,  the  necessary  inferences  are ;  first,  that  Tertullian 
does  not  use  the  Latin  language  with  perfect  classic  certainty  ; 
and,  second,  that  the  practice  in  regard  to  baptism  in  his 
time,  was  various — the  quantity  of  water  being  considered 
unessential.  This  is  a  fact,  expressly  asserted  by  Tertullian, 
Thus,*  "  There  is  no  difference  whether  we  are  washed  (di- 
luvater)  in  the  sea,  (mari,)  or  b,  pond,  (stagno,)  in  a  river  (flu- 
mine)  or  spring,  (fonte,)  in  a  standing  pool,  (lacu,)  or  running 
brook,  (alves.)  Nor  is  there  any  difference  between  those 
whom  John  baptized  (tinxit)  in  Jordan,  and  Peter  in  the  Ti- 
ber !"  This  language  of  Tertullian  is  the  more  conclusive, 
as  he  seems  to  have  placed  a  higher  estimate  upon  the  effect 
of  baptism,  than  was  authorized  by  the  Church  at  that  time. 

We  have  now,  we  believe,  examined  every  passage  in 
Scripture,  and  every  passage  in  the  Fathers  of  the  two  first 
centuries,  that  bears  at  all  upon  the  mode  of  baptism,  and 
upon  a  review  of  the  whole  evidence  on  this  subject,  we  are 
authorized  to  say,  that  there  is  not,  either  in  the  Bible  or  the 
writings  of  the  Christians,  to  the  end  of  the  second  century,  any 
thing  which  will  support  the  assertion,  that  baptism  was  per- 
formed by  the  Apostles  and  primitive  Christians  by  immersion, 
in  the  modern  sense  of  the  word. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

SUBJECTS  OF  BAPTISM. 

That  believing  adults  are  proper  subjects  of  baptism,  all 
allow.     But  is  baptism  to  be  admiiiistered  to  any  but  adults  ? 

To  this,  some  reply  in  the  negative  ;  we  in  the  affirmative. 
We  proceed,  therefore,  to  the  proof. 

*  De  Bap.  c,  4. 


70  APOSTOLIC  COMMISSION 

1.  "Go  ye,  therefore,  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  ;  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have 
commanded  you."     (Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20.) 

In  this  Commission,  three  things  are  to  be  observed : 

(1.)  The  Apostles  were  to  teach  all  nations. 

(2.)  They  were  to  baptize  all  nations. 

(3.)  They  were  to  teach  all  nations  whatsoever  had  been 
commanded  them. 

In  reference  to  the  first  point,  that  of  teaching  all  nations, 
we  observe,  that  the  original  [matheteuo)  does  not  signify  to 
teach,  in  the  present  sense  of  that  word.  Its  proper  signifi- 
cation is,  to  disciple.  This  may  be  done,  in  some  measure,  by 
teaching  and  instructing,  and  generally,  though  not  necessa- 
rily, implies  some  degree  of  it.  The  teaching,  however, 
mentioned  under  the  third  head,  (didasko,)  is  distinct  from  that 
under  the  first  head,  and  denotes  that  kind  of  instruction  given 
by  a  master  to  his  pupils.  A  literal  rendering  of  the  forego- 
ing passage,  would  be  : — 

"  Go  ye,  disciple  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  teaching 
them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded 
you." 

From  this  it  is  evident,  that  the  first  clause,  "  disciple  all 
nations,"  includes,  in  general  terms,  what  is  more  particularly 
pointed  out  in  both  of  the  others  ;  that  is,  "  baptizing"  and 
"  teaching,'^  as  the  means  of  making  disciples.  The  first  idea 
which  occurs  upon  reading  this  passage,  is,  that  it  is  not  to  be 
understood  in  its  most  literal  sense,  as  no  one  pretends  that 
"  all  nations"  were  to  be  baptized  in  a  mass  or  body.  We 
are  therefore  obliged  to  seek  some  rule  of  interpretation,  which 
will  enable  us  to  give  it  a  consistent  and  reasonable  construc- 
tion. The  rule  must  also  be  one  which  will  apply  both  to 
baptizing  and  teaching,  as  both  are  clothed  in  the  same  gene- 


CHILDREN  INCLUDED.  71 

ral  terms.  Some  endeavor  to  construe  the  command  to  mean, 
"  teach  all  who  are  capable  of  being  taught,  and  baptize  those 
whom  ye  teach."  But  this  is  unauthorized,  because  it  is  fra- 
ming a  rule  applicable  only  to  one  clause,  and  from  the  con- 
struction of  that  clause,  deducing  a  rule  by  which  to  construe 
the  other.  We  are  willing,  however,  to  abide  by  the  very 
rule  of  interpretation  that  our  opponents  have  framed,  if  they 
will  be  consistent  with  themselves,  and  apply  it  to  all  the 
clauses,  in  the  order  in  which  they  are  given  by  the  Evan- 
gelist.    It  will  then  read  : — 

"  Go  ye,  disciple  all  that  are  capable  of  being  disciptled ; 
baptizing  all  who  are  capable  of  receiving  baptism,  and  teach- 
ing all  who  are  capable  of  being  taught." 

If  this  is  the  real  meaning  of  the  passage,  it  does  not  de- 
volve upon  those  who  believe  in  the  necessity  and  authority 
of  infant  baptism,  to  do  more  than  show  that  infants  are  ca- 
pable of  receiving  baptism ;  a  point  so  self-evident,  that  those 
who  deny  it  assume  the  burden  of  proof;  for  though  it  is 
a  sound  rule,  that  no  man  shall  be  bound  to  prove  the  nega- 
tive of  a  general  proposition,  yet  it  is  no  less  a  sound  rule, 
that  he  who  attempts  to  limit  the  language  of  such  a  proposi- 
tion, is  bound  to  prove  the  limitation.  If,  then,  it  is  affirmed 
that  infants  are  not  included  in  this  general  language,  it  is  the 
duty  of  those  who  make  the  affirmation,  to  prove  its  truth. 
And  if  they  can  not  prove  its  truth,  then  infant  baptism  is  not 
only  lawful,  but  is  commanded.  The  language  of  St.  Mark 
clearly  sustains  this  conclusion : — "  Go  ye  into  all  the  world, 
and  preach  the  gospel  unto  every  creature,  that  is,  to  all  hu" 
man  creatures.''^     (Mark  xvi.  15.) 

2.  The  next  passage  which  authorizes  "  infant  baptism,"  is, 
"  suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not, 
for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven.''''  (Matt.  xix.  14;  Mark 
X.  14  ;  Luke  xviii.  16.)  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  as  a  very  sin- 
gular, as  well  as  a  very  unusual  coincidence,  that  the  three 


72  THE  KINGDOM  OF  HEAVEN. 

Evangelists  considered  this  passage  of  sufficient  importance 
to  be  recorded  at  full  length  in  each  of  their  gospels,  and 
they  have  all  given  it  in  the  same  language,  except  that  Mark 
and  Luke  have  "  the  kingdom  of  God,"  instead  of  "  the  king- 
dom of  heaven."     Upon  this,  two  questions  arise  : — 

(1.)  What  is  meant  by  "the  kingdom  of  heaven?" 

(2.)  And  what,  by  coming  to  Christ  ? 

First,  what  is  meant  by  "  the  kingdom  of  God,"  and  "  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,"  in  these  passages  ?  These  phrases  may 
denote  two  things — either  the  Church  Triumphant  above,  or 
the  Church  Militant  on  earth,  or  both  together.  As  to  the 
first  of  these  significations,  there  will  be  no  doubt ;  nor  is 
there  any  more  room  for  doubt  as  to  the  second,  as  we  have 
already  shown,  in  a  former  chapter.  It  is  clear,  therefore, 
that  by  the  phrase,  "  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  and  "  the  king- 
dom of  God,"  the  Church  on  earth  may  be  meant.  Whether 
that  be  the  meaning  in  this  passage,  depends  upon  the  con- 
struction to  be  put  upon  it,  to  which  we  shall  soon  refer. 

Second,  what  is  meant  by  coming  to  Christ  ?  The  answer 
to  this,  as  to  the  other  inquiry,  is  twofold.  We  are  said  "  to 
come  to  Christ,"  when  we  submit  ourselves  to  him,  giving  up 
our  souls  and  bodies  to  him  and  to  his  service,  by  repent- 
ance, faith,  and  obedience.  We  are  also  said  to  come  to 
Christ,  when  we  enroll  our  names  upon  the  list  of  his  pro- 
fessed disciples  and  followers,  by  publicly  professing  his 
name  before  men.  No  man  can  come  to  Christ  in  the  first  of 
these  senses,  except  by  that  true  and  living  faith,  which  qual- 
ifies us  for  admission  into  the  New  Jerusalem  above  ;  but 
many  come  to  Christ,  by  such  a  public  profession  of  his  name, 
and  thus  enter  the  Church  on  earth,  who  are  nevertheless  to 
be  reckoned  among  the  had,  who,  when  "  the  net  is  drawn 
ashore,"  will  be  cast  away.  If,  therefore,  by  "  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,"  in  the  foregoing  places,  the  Church  on  earth  is 
meant,  then  coming  to  Christ  in  baptism,  must  be  the  mode 


COMING  TO  CHRIST.  73 

designated,  and  if  this  mode  of  coming  to  Christ  be  the  one 
intended,  then  the  Church  on  earth  must  be  the  one  refer- 
red to. 

Now  nothing  can  be  plainer,  than  that  little  children  were 
"  to  come  to  Christ,"  and  that  such  were  to  enter  into  "  the 
kingdom  of  heaven."  If,  then,  by  "  the  kingdom  of  heaven" 
is  meant  the  Church,  it  follows  necessarily,  that  they  were  to 
enter  the  Church  hy  baptism ;  for  it  is  admitted  by  all,  that 
baptism  is  the  only  rite  of  initiation  into  the  Church.  Hence, 
if  it  be  shown  that  a  person  has  received  baptism,  then  we 
know  that  he  is  a  member  of  the  Church ;  or  if  it  be  shown 
that  a  person  is  a  member  of  the  Church,  then  we  know  that 
he  has  been  baptized.  If,  then,  it  be  shown  that  children  are 
members  of  the  Church,  or  are  considered  fit  subjects  to  be- 
come members,  then  we  have  shown  that  they  have  been 
baptized,  or  are  fit  subjects  for  baptism.  It  follows,  therefore, 
from  the  foregoing  passages,  either  that  children  are  to  come 
to  Christ  by  being  received  into  his  Church  by  baptism  ;  or 
that  being  unworthy  to  join  the  Church  Militant  here  below, 
they  are  to  be  transported  immediately  to  the  abodes  of  bless- 
edness, in  the  Church  Triumphant  above — a  conclusion  they 
can  not  avoid.  Unless,  then,  we  are  willing  to  abide  this  ab- 
surdity, we  must  allow  that  little  children  are  to  be  made  mem- 
bers  of  the  Church,  and  that  infant  baptism  is,  therefore, 

COMMAiSiDED. 

3.  The  foregoing  passages  prove  that  little  children  were 
to  receive  the  ordinance  of  baptism  ;  we  shall  now  show  that 
they  actually  were  baptized  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles. 
Thus,  St.  Paul  says  to  the  Corinthians,  "  The  unbelieving 
husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving  wife  is 
sanctified  by  the  husband  ;  else  were  your  children  unclean, 
but  now  are  they  holy."     (1  Cor.  vii.  14.) 

It  is  admitted  by  all,  that  this  passage  is  not  to  be  interpre- 
ted in  its  most  literal  sense,  as  those  words  are  now  under- 
17* 


74  CHILDREN  AT  CORINTH 

Stood,  for  then  the  faith  of  the  wife  would  become  the  faith 
of  the  husband,  and  the  faith  of  the  husband  would  become 
the  faith  of  the  wife,  and  the  faith  of  either  would  become 
the  faith  of  the  whole  family,  so  that  the  whole  family  would 
be  finally  saved  by  the  faith  of  one  of  its  members,  which  is 
not  only  absurd,  but  contrary  to  the  express  declarations  of 
Scripture. 

It  will  assist  us  in  the  interpretation  of  this  text,  to  ascer- 
tain what  the  Apostle  took  for  granted,  and  what  he  desired 
to  proA^e.  When,  therefore,  the  Apostle  says,  "  The  unbe- 
lieving husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife,  and  the  unbelieving 
wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband  ;  else  were  your  children 
unclean,  but  now  are  they  holy,"  he  assumes,  that  "  children 
whose  parents  were  both  believers,  were  sanctified,  or  holy," 
and  reasoning  from  that  assumption,  assures  the  Corinthians, 
that  "  children  who  had  one  believing  parent,  were  placed  in 
the  same  situation  ;  ELSE,  epei,  for  otherwise*  they  would 
be  unclean,  that  is,  unsanctified  and  unhohj."  Our  first  inquiry 
must,  therefore,  be,  what  is  the  scriptural  meaning  of  agiazo, 
to  sanctify  ?  and  agios^  "  holy  z*"  and  when,  and  in  what  sense, 
could  the  children  of  believing  parents  be  said  to  be  sanctified  ? 

(1.)  What  is  the  meaning  of  agiazo,  "to  sanctify?"  The 
usual  signification  of  this  word  is,  to  set  apart,  or  consecrate 
to  the  service  of  God.  Thus,  in  Matthew,  (xxiii.  17,  19:) 
"  Whether  is  greater,  the  gold,  or  the  temple  that  sanctifieth 
{agiazon)  the  gold."  So  St.  Paul  addresses  his  Epistle, "  Unto 
the  Church  of  God  which  is  at  Corinth,  unto  them  that  are 
sanctified  [egiasmenois)  in  Christ  Jesus."  (1  Cor.  i.  2.)  And 
again  he  says  to  the  same  Church,  "  But  ye  are  washed,  {ape- 
lousathe,)  [i.  e.  in  baptism,]  but  ye  are  sanctified,  (egiasthete,) 
[i.  6.  set  apart,  or  consecrated  to  the  service  of  God  by  bap- 
tismy     (1    Cor.  vi.   11.)     Neither  of  these   passages  from 

*Rob.  Gr.  Lex.  p.  296  ;  Butt.  Gr.  Gram.  §  149. 


ACTUALLY  BAPTIZED.  7"5 

Corinthians,  can  be  confined  to  that,  sanctification  of  heart, 
which  is  wrought  "  by  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ;"  for 
both  are  addressed  to  all  the  individuals  composing  the  Church 
at  Corinth,  among  whom  were  some  bad  men,  as  we  learn 
from  the  epistle  itself.  Another,  and  a  more  conclusive  proof, 
that  this  word  does  not  mean  purification  of  heart  alone,  is  to 
be  found  in  the  fact,  that  the  same  language  is  applied  to 
Christ  himself:  "  Say  ye  of  him,  whom  the  Father  hath 
sanctified,  [egiasc,)  and  sent  into  the  world."  (John  x.  36.)  In 
no  sense  could  Christ  be  said  to  he  sanctified,  except  as  he 
was  set  apart  to  the  office  of  Mediator,  &;c.  This  is  indeed 
its  more  usual  sense,  both  in  the  New  Testament  and  in  the 
Septuagint,  where  it  is  used  for  the  Hebrew  kaddsh,  "  to  con- 
secrate, to  make  holy  by  consecration.^^  The  language  of  St. 
Paul  "  to  the  saints  at  Ephesus,"  is  entirely  decisive  on  this 
point : — "  That  he  might  sanctify  [agiasei)  and  cleanse  it  with 
the  washing  [loutro)  of  water."  (Eph.  v.  26.)  This  can 
mean  nothing  but  baptism,  and  hence,  when  agiazo  is  applied 
to  the  members  of  the  Church  collectively,  including,  of  course, 
the  good  and  bad  members,  it  means  that  they  have  been 
sanctified,  i.  e.  set  apart  to  the  worship  and  service  of  God  in 

BAPTISM. 

The  same  conclusion  must  be  drawn  from  an  examination 
of  the  word  agios.  This  word,  says  Tittman,*  "  is  rarely  or 
never  used  by  the  Greek  writers,  for  that  purity  of  mind, 
which  theologians  have  called  sancity,  but  it  constantly  denotes 
that  which  is  consecrated  to  the  Gods."  In  the  New  Testa- 
ment it  is  applied  to  both  persons  and  things.  As  the  Prophets, 
(Luke  i.  70  ;  Acts  iii.  21  ;  2  Peter  i.  21  ;)  to  the  priesthood 
of  the  Christian,  (1  Peter  ii.  5  ;)  to  the  Apostles,  (Eph.  iii.  5;) 
to  the  Angels,  (Matt.  xxv.  31  ;)  to  places,  (Acts  vii.  33  ;)  and 
especially  to  Jerusalem,  (Matt.  iv.  5  ;)  to  the  Temple,  (1  Cor. 

*  Synora.  N.  T.  c.  2,  p.  37. 


76  CHILDREN  HOW  SANCTIFIED. 

iii.  17;)  and  also  to  all  who  professed  the  Christian  name. 
(Acts  ix.  13,  32,41  ;  xxvi.  10;  Rom.  i.  7;  viii.  27.)  It  is 
clear,  therefore,  that  the  children  of  Christians  were  holy,  and, 
as  must  follow  from  these  considerations,  in  the  sense  of  having 
been  consecrated  to  God. 

(2.)  Our  next  inquiry  is,  how  the  children  of  believing 
parents  had  been  sanctified.  They  were  certainly  not 
sanctified  "  by  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  in  conse- 
quence of  the  faith  of  either  or  both  of  the  parents  ;  nor  were 
they  sanctified  in  the  sense  of  being  consecrated  to  God,  by 
the  simple  act  of  the  parents'  faith.  Something  more  is  ne- 
cessary, as  a  sanctification  or  consecration  requires  a  public 
act  of  dedication  to  God,  which,  in  reference  to  Christians,  is 
done  in  baptism.  But  still,  the  sanctification  of  the  children, 
is  said  by  the  Apostle  to  be  in  consequence  of  the  faith  of  the 
parent.  Now  the  parent  could  in  no  way  sanctify  the  child, 
except  by  offering  him,  through  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus,  in  the 
ordinance  of  baptism,  that  he  might  be  sanctified  ;  that  is,  be 
set  apart  and  consecrated  to  the  service  of  God,  in  that  holy 
rite.  Our  only  alternative,  therefore,  is  to  conclude  that  the 
Apostle  uses  the  same  language  in  the  same  sense  here  as 
elsewhere  in  his  epistles,  and  if  he  does  so,  then  this  passage 
contains  an  unequivocal  declaration  of  the  blessed  Apostle 
Pa\d,  that  the  children  of  the  Corinthian  Christians  had  re- 
ceived the  ordinance  of  baptism. 


CHAPTER  Vm. 

SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM  CONTINUED. 

To  the  Scriptural  evidence  on  this   subject,  we  shall  add 
the  testimony  of  the  earliest  Fathers. 

Hermas  describes  the  subsequent  conduct  of  all  who  had 


TESTIMONY  OF  HERMAS.  77 

received  this  rite,  under  the  similitude  of  twelve  mountains. 
The  first  mountain  was  "  black,"  and  was  composed  of  "  those 
who  had  revolted  from  the  faith,  that  is,  had  apostatized,  for 
whom  there  was  no  repentance."*  The  second  was  "  smooth," 
and  composed  of  "  hypocrites,  for  whom  there  was  no  repent- 
ance."t  The  third  was  "  covered  w4th  thorns  and  brambles," 
and  was  composed  "  of  those  who  had  been  choked  with  the 
affairs  of  the  world,  to  whom  a  "  space  for  repentance  was  al- 
lowed.":}:  The  fourth  had  herbs,  "  with  dry  roots  and  green 
tops,  which  withered  in  the  sun,"  and  denoted  the  "  doubtful, 
who  live  in  w^ords,  but  are  dead  in  works."  To  these  "  space 
of  repentance  was  also  given. "§  The  Jlfth  was  "  steep  and 
craggy,  but  had  green  grass,"  and  signifies  "  those  who  be- 
lieved and  were  faithful,  but  were  bold  and  self-conceited."|| 
The  sixth  was  "  filled  with  small  clefts,"  and  denoted  those 
"  who  had  had  controversies  among  themselves,  by  reason  of 
which  their  faith  languished. "H  The  seventh  "  was  green  and 
flourishing,"  and  denoted  "  those  who  were  always  good  and 
upright  "**  The  eighth  was  "  filled  with  abundance  of  springs, 
by  which  all  creatures  of  God  were  watered,"  and  denoted 
"  the  faithful  teachers  of  the  word  of  God. "ft  The  ninth  "  was 
desert,  and  covered  wath  serpents,"  and  denoted  such  "  min- 
isters as  had  discharged  their  ministry  amiss,"  but  to  whom 
"  space  of  repentance  was  allowed."JJ  The  tenth  was  "  cov- 
ered with  trees  affording  shade  for  the  cattle,"  which  were 
"  the  faithful  Bishops  and  Governors  of  the  Church. "§^  The 
eleventh  had  "  trees  of  divers  sorts  of  fruits,"  and  denoted  "those 
who  had  suffered  for  the  name  of  the  Lord."||||  The  twelfth 
mountain  was  white,  and  denoted  "  such  as  have  believed  as 
sincere  children,  i?ito  whose  thoughts  no  malice  ever  came,  who 
had  never  known  what  sin  was,  hut  had  always  continued  in  their 


*L. 

iii. 

Sim. 

ix. 

,  c. 

19. 

tc. 

19. 

tc. 

20. 

§C. 

21. 

II  C. 

22. 

ire. 

•23 

** 

C. 

24. 

ttc 

.  25. 

XXG. 

26. 

§§c. 

,27. 

IlilC. 

28. 

78  TESTIMONY  OF  JUSTIN. 

integrity.  Wherefore  this  kind  of  mortals  shall  without  doubt 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."*  "  Wherefore  because 
those  who  had  belie\'ed  of  that  mountain  were  very  innocent, 
the  Lord  of  the  tower  commanded  that  they  which  were  of 
the  roots  of  this  mountain  should  be  placed  in  the  building; 
for  he  knew  that  if  they  were  put  into  the  building,  they  would 
continue  bright,  nor  would  any  of  them  become  black."! 

We  have  given  a  more  full  account  of  these  symbolical 
mountains,  that  our  readers  might  see  for  themselves,  that  the 
whole  of  the  twelfth  mountain  is  descriptive  only  of  children, 
and  can  denote  nothing  but  children  and  infants,  who  having 
received  the  seal  of  baptism,  died  before  they  had  known  sin. 
Hence  it  follows  conclusively,  that  children  and  infants,  in  the 
days  of  Hermas,  received  the  rite  of  baptism,  and  that,  too,  by 
sprinkling  or  pouring.  When  this  rite  was  administered  to 
adults,  the  candidates  seem  to  have  stood  in  the  edge  of  the 
water,  if  they  were  baptized  in  a  brook  or  river,  or  by  the 
side  of  the  water  in  other  cases,  when  the  water  was  poured 
upon  them. 

Justin  Martyr.  There  is  one  passage  in  Justin,  which 
the  principles  of  just  criticism  require  us  to  apply  to  infants,  as 
subjects  of  baptism.     Thus  he  says  : 

"  There  are  many  of  both  sexes,  sixty  or  seventy  years  of 
age,  who  had  been  discipled  (ematheteuthesan)  to  Christ 
in  childhood,  (paidon.y^X 

To  this  it  is  objected  by  some  ;  (1,)  that  paidon  does  not 
always  signify  children,  but  sometimes  youths,  and  that  these 
might  have  been  made  disciples  upon  their  own  faith.  We 
grant  that  pais  does  not  necessarily,  though  it  does  usually, 
signify  a  child,  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  word,  but  it  is  ad- 
mitted that  it  is  nearly  or  quite  equivalent  to  child,  according 

*  C.  29.  tC.  30. 

tP.  22,  Lond.  Ed.  p.  02,  Par.  Ed.  c.  IS,  Trans.  Chevalier. 


TESTIMONY  OF   IREN^US.  79 

to  its  common  meaning.  The  word  childhood,  therefore,  by 
which  we  have  rendered  pais,  is  the  true  meaning  of  the 
original.  They  also  object,  (2.)  that  to  disciple,  does  not  mean 
to  baptize,  and  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  baptism  was 
performed  in  childhood.  In  answer  to  this  objection,  we  may 
saij,Jirst,  that  it  is  evident  that  if  they  had  been  baptized  at 
all,  they  were  baptized  when  they  were  discipled,  and  that 
they  had  been  baptized,  no  one  doubts  ;  and,  second,  that  the 
language  does  necessarily  imply  that  they  had  become  Christ- 
ians, and  if  they  had  become  Christians,  they  must  have  re- 
ceived the  rite  of  baptism. 

Iren^us,  Bishop  of  Lyons,  in  Gaul,  lived  and  wrote  about 
A.  D.  175.  His  work  Against  Heresy,  has  ever  been  held 
in  high  repute.*    He  says  : 

"  Christ  came  to  save  all  persons  by  himself;  all,  I  mean, 
who  are  regenerated  (renascuntur,  i.  e.  baptizedf)  unto  God  ; 
infants  (infantes)  and  little  ones,  (parvulos,)  and  children,  (pu- 
eros,)  and  young  persons,  (juvenes,)  and  oZc/per^owi',  (seniors.) 
Therefore  he  went  through  all  ages  ;  and  for  infants,  became 
an  infant,  that  he  might  sanctify  infants  ;  and  for  little  ones, 
became  a  little  one,  that  he  might  sanctify  those  of  that  age  ; 
and  also  give  them  an  example  of  goodness,  justice,  and  duti- 
fulness." 

The  only  objection  which  it  has  been  possible  to  raise 
against  this  passage,  is  to  doubt  whether  it  has  reference  to 
baptism.     But  such  an  objection  can  have  no  force,  even  with 

*L.  ii.c.  39. 

t  On  the  meaning  of  renascor,  see  Orig.  ad  Rora.  6.  Cyj*.  Ep.  Ad.  Fi- 
dum,  Cyr.  Jerus.  Cat.  Mys.  1.  Greg.  Naz.  Oral.  Sane.  Lav.  Basil  Exhor. 
Bap.  and  Clirys.  Jerom.  Augus.  Theod.  &c.  Also  all  the  ancient  Baptismal 
Liturgies,  as,  Lit.  Ant.  Ass.  II.  220,  Armenian.  lb.  II.  198,  Apos.  Jerus. 
lb.  II.  26C,  Alex.  Copt.  lb.  II.  1G5,  Old  Gallic,  lb.  II.  42,  Syriac,  lb.  II. 
258,  etc.  The  difficulty  is  not  to  find  proof  in  favor  of  this  interpretation,  but  to 
find  authorities  against  it. 


80  KNOWLEDGE  OF  THE  FATHERS. 

the  merest  tyro  in  ecclesiastical  history.  Those  who  are 
not  familiar  with  it,  we  need  only  refer  to  the  language  of 
Justin,  above  quoted,  and  to  the  following,  from  Irenaeus  him- 
self. Thus  he  says,*  "  And  because  the  renunciation  of  hap- 
tism — of  that  regeneration  (baptismatis  ejus  regenerationis) 
which  is  unto  God."  And,t  "  Christ  gave  his  disciples  the 
power  of  regeneration  (regenerationis)  into  God  saying  to 
them,  '  go  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them,' "  &c. 

We  ought  here  to  add  a  word  concerning  the  knowledge  of 
Justin  and  Irenaeus  upon  these  subjects,  and  of  the  means  they 
had  of  acquainting  themselves  with  the  practices  of  the  Apos- 
tolic age.  Justin  tells  us,  that  when  he  wrote,  A.  D.  150, 
persons  were  living  seventy  years  of  age,  who  became  Christ- 
ians in  their  childhood.  Such  persons  must  have  been  born 
as  early  as  A.  D.  80,  or  20  years  before  the  death  of  St. 
John,  and  consequently  they  must  have  known  what  was  the 
practice  of  the  Apostles.  From  these,  Justin  could  obtain 
the  most  satisfactory  information.  Nor  was  the  means  of  in- 
formation possessed  by  Irenseus,  less  satisfactory,  for  he  tells 
us  himself,  that  he  was  a  pupil  of  Polycarp,  Bishop  of  Smyr- 
na,J  and  Polycarp  we  know  was  a  pupil  of  the  Apostle  and 
beloved  disciple  St.  John.§  Polycarp,  therefore,  knew  per- 
sonally, and  Irenaeas  knew  from  Polycarp,  what  was  the 
Apostolic  practice,  and  the  bare  mention  of  the  existence  of 
infant  baptism,  by  Irenaeus,  unaccompanied  by  any  intimation 
that  it  was  an  innovation,  in  a  work  written  expressly  to  point 
out  all  innovations,  is  conclusive  evidence  that  it  had  been 
practised  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles.  The  testimony  of 
these  two  writers,  does,  therefore,  render  it  absolutely  certain, 
that  infant  baptism  was  practised  in  the  primitive  and  Apos- 


*L.  i.  c.  18.  fL-iii-  c  19. 

X  Ep.  Flor.  in  Euseb.  Ecc.  Hist.  L.  v.  c.  20. 

$  Martyr.  Ign.  c.  3. 


TESTIMONY  OF  TER.TULLIAN.  81 

tolic  Church.  No  evidence  could  be  more  entirely  decisive 
on  this  point. 

Tertullian.  We  will  consider  next  the  case  of  Tertul- 
lian,  a  Presbyter  in  the  Church  at  Carthage,  who  was  con- 
temporary with  Irenaeus,  and  wrote  about  A.  D,  195.  He 
was  a  man  of  ardent  temperament,  something  wanting  in 
sound  judgment,  and  in  the  latter  part  of  his  life,  not  entirely 
sound  in  the  faith.  Among  other  strange  notions  that  he  fell 
into,  one  was,  that  sin,  after  baptism,  could  hardly  be  pardoned ; 
or,  in  other  words,  that  all  sin,  after  baptism,  was  sin  against 
the  Holy  Ghost.  Hence  he  advised  the  delay  of  baptism. 
The  following  is  from  his  treatise  On  Baptism* 

"  Therefore,  according  to  the  condition  and  disposition  of 
persons,  and  also  their  age,  the  delay  of  baptism  is  more  ad- 
visable ;  especially  in  the  case  of  little  children,  (parvulos.) 
.  .  .  .  Our  Lord  says,  indeed,  '  Forbid  them  not  to  come 
unto  me.'  Therefore  let  them  come  when  they  understand  ; 
when  they  are  instructed  why  it  is  that  they  come." 

Two  remarks  are  suggested  by  this  quotation  ;  first,  that 
Tertullian,  in  advising  the  delay  of  infant  baptism,  recognizes 
the  existence  of  the  practice  in  the  Church  at  that  time  ;  and, 
second,  that  he  understood  the  passage,  "  Suffer  little  children 
to  come  unto  me  and  forbid  them  not,"  (Matt.  xix.  14  ;  Mark 
X.  14  ;  Luke  xviii.  16,)  as  did  the  primitive  Church  generally, 
and  as  the  principles  of  common  sense  interpretation  now  re- 
quire us  to  construe  it,  to  denote  coming  to  Christ  in  baptism, 
Tertullian  also  understands  the  passage,  (1  Cor.  vii.  14,)  of 
which  we  have  before  spoken,  to  denote  baptism.  Thus  he 
quotes  the  passage  :  "  Of  either  parent  sanctified,  the  children 
that  are  horn  are  holy ;"  by  reason  of  the  prerogative  of  that 
seed,  and  also  the  instruction  in  their  education  ;  else,  says 
he,  were  they  unclean.     But    yet   meaning  to  be  understood 

*C.  18, 


82  INCIDENTAL  PROOF  FROM 

thus:  that  the  children  of  the  faithful,  are  designed  for  holi- 
ness ;*  that  is,  "  baptismal  holiness."!  That  Tertullian  was 
opposed  to  infant  baptism,  no  one  doubts,  and  this  fact  is  the 
most  conclusive  evidence  of  the  existence  of  the  practice,  as 
no  one  would  oppose  a  practice  which  had  no  existence. 

We  have  now  examined  all  the  passages  in  the  Bible,  and 
the  Fathers  of  the  two  first  centuries,  which  have  any  direct 
bearing  on  the  question  touching  the  subjects  of  baptism ;  and 
are  authorized  to  say,  that  the  evidence  is  conclusive  in  favor  of 
the  right  of  infants  to  baptism. 

There  are  several  other  arguments  in  proof  of  the  conclu- 
sion here  drawn,  but  we  have  extended  this  examination  so 
much  beyond  our  original  intention,  that  we  shall  barely  enu- 
merate them, 

I.  That  the  quantity  of  water  is  not  essential  to  the  ordi- 
nance, we  infer  : — 

1.  Because  baptism  being  symbolic  of  purification,  the 
rule  given  by  Christ  to  Peter,  (John  xiii.,)  he  that  was 
washed  in  part,  was  clean  every  whit,  is  applicable. 

2.  From  the  cases  of  household  baptism,  as  in  the  cases 
of  Cornelius,  (Acts  x. ;)  of  Lydia,  (Acts  xvi. ;)  of  the  Jailer, 
(Acts  xvi.;)  of  Crispus,  (Acts  xviii.  and  1  Cor.  i. ;)  of  Ste- 
phanus  and  Gains,  (1  Cor.  i. ;)  and  of  the  baptism  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost,  (Acts  ii. ;)  and  at  Samaria,  by  Philip,  (Acts  viii. ;) 
which  alone  would  render  infant  baptism  highly  probable. 

II.  That  infants  are  to  be  admitted  to  baptism  and  the  priv- 
ileges of  the  new  covenant,  we  also  infer  : — 

1.  From  the  fact  that  the  Christian  Church  has  succeeded 
the  Jewish  Church,  into  which  infants  were  received  by  ex- 
press command.  That  it  has  so  succeeded,  is  evident  from 
what  we  have  before  said  ;  and  also, 

(1.)  Because  the  blessings  promised  to  Abraham,  at  the  in- 

*  De  Anima,  c.  39.  f  De  Bap.  c.  12. 


SCRIPTURE,  ON  INFANT  BAPTISM.  83 

stitution  of  the  covenant,  of  which  circumcision  was  the  seal, 
were  intended  for  the  Gentiles  also,  through  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ.     (Gen.  xvii. ;  Gal.  iii.  19 — 29.) 

(2.)  Because  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  was  not 
disannulled  by  the  fulfilling  of  the  law  given  at  Sinai ;  and 
must,  therefore,  continue  in  force.     (Gal.  iii.  17.) 

(3.)  Because  all  persons  who  have  been  baptized  into 
Christ,  are  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  to  the  promises  con- 
tained in  the  covenant  made  with  him.     (Gal.  iii.  27,  29.) 

2.  We  also  infer  that  infants  should  be  offered  to  Goi>  in 
baptism,  upon  the  faith  of  the  parent,  or  master,  because  the 
blessings  which  Christ  conferred  upon  men,  were  frequently- 
given  to  childrep  and  servants,  on  the  faith  of  the  parents  or 
master.  Thus,/the  servant  of  the  centurion  was  healed,  upon 
the  faith  of  his  master,  (Matt,  viii.)  The  ruler's  daughter 
was  restored  to  life  and  health,  on  account  of  her  father's 
faith,  (Luke  viii.,)  and  the  woman  of  Samaria,  by  her  faith, 
obtained  the  like  blessing  for  her  daughter.  (Matt,  xx.)  And 
the  little  children  on  whom  Christ  bestowed  his  blessing, 
were  presented  to  him  on  the  faith  of  believing  parents.  In 
view  of  these,  and  many  other  facts  of  a  similar  character, 
it  is  impossible  for  us  to  see  how  any  servant  of  Christ  can 
drive  from  his  altar  and  reject  from  his  covenant,  those  to 
whom  He  extended  those  blessings  while  on  earth,  and  of 
whom  He  said,  "  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God."  ^ 


CHAPTER  IX. 

incidental  proof  as  to  the  mode  of  baptism. 

In  the  discussion  of  this  question,  reference  is  often  made 
to  the  present  practice  of  the  Oriental  Churches.     We  add, 


84  PRACTICE  OF  THE 

therefore,  the  customs  of  those  Churches,  to  satisfy  the  curi- 
osity of  those  who  lay  any  stress  upon  it. 

Our  principal  authority  for  the  practice  of  the  Eastern 
Christians,  is  Joseph  Simon  xA.ssemani,  a  Syrian  by  birth,  but 
sometime  resident  at  Rome,  and  one  of  the  most  learned  Mar- 
onite  Christians  of  modern  days.  He  was  some  time  libra- 
rian of  the  Vatican,  and  published  a  large  work  on  the  Eastern 
Churches,  entitled,  Bibliotheca  Orientalis  Vaticana.  From 
this,  and  various  other  Oriental  authors,  the  Rev,  S.  F.  Jarvis, 
D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  in  a  most  invaluable  Report,  on  the  state  of 
the  Oriental  Churches,  made  to  the  Board  of  Missions  in 
1838,  has  given  a  summary  of  the  practices  of  the  Oriental 
Christians,  as  nearly  in  the  language  of  the  original  authors 
as  possible.  From  that  summary,  we  make  the  following 
extracts  : 

Armenians "  Tlie  Priest  then  asks  the  name  of 

the  child,  and  taking  him  on  his  left  arm,  and  supporting  his 
feet  with  his  right,  he  puts  him  into  the  font,  his  head  being 
kept  out  of  the  water*  The?i  icith  the  hollow  of  his  hand,  he 
pours  water  upon  the  child  three  times,  baptizing  him,"  &c. 

Syro-Jacobites "  The  child  is  then  put  into  the 

font  with  his  face  toward  the  East,  and  his  head  being  sup- 
ported by  the  right  hand  of  the  Priest,  the  water  is  taken  up 
in  the  hollow  of  his  left  hand,  and  poured  three  times  upon  the 
head,  while  he  says, '  N.  is  baptized,' "  &c. 

Copts  and  Abyssinians.  "  Among  the  Copts  and  Abys- 
sinians,  baptism  is  administered  as  among  the  Syrians ;" 
that  is,  by  the  priesVs  pouring  water  upon  the  head  of  the 
candidate,  while  the  body  of  the  person  is  in  the  water,  the  head 
being  out.  Consequently,  baptism  is  practised  among  them 
by  immersion,  in  one  sense  of  the  word,  but  not  in  the  sense 


*  Yet  the  Armenian   Liturgy  uses  the  language,  "  descending  into  the 
Vater,"  as  applied  to  our  Saviour.     Ass.  vol.  ii.  p.  19<i. 


ORIEN^TAL   CHURCHES.  85 

contended  for.  At  the  same  time,  the  immersion  is  not  re- 
garded as  an  essential  part  of  the  baptism. 

The  Svro-ChalDvEans,  improperly  called  Nestorians,  use 
the  same  formula  of  baptism  as  the  Syr o- Jacobites^  and  the 
Priest  puts  the  child  into  the  font  in  the  same  manner  as 
among  the  Syro- Jacobites  ;  but  it  is  not  expressly  said  wheth- 
er the  head  is  put  into  the  water  or  not.  It  is,  however,  said, 
of  all  these  various  sects  :  "  The  same  creed  is  professed,  the 
same  prayers  uttered,  the  same  Scriptures  read,  and  the  same 
Sacraments  admi?iistered,  as  to  all  essential  particulars, 
IN  the  same  manner."  Hence  baptism  must  be  the  same 
among  the  Syro-Chaldaeans,  as  among  the  Armenians,  Syro- 
Jacobites,  Copts,  and  Abyssinians.* 

Greek  Church.  The  practice  of  this  Church  is  not  uni- 
form. In  Greece  proper,  some  hold  immersion  necessary ; 
others  not ;  but  the  whole  Russian  Church  holds  it  immaterial. 
We  give  an  extract  from  a  very  scarce  book.  An  Account  of 
the  Greek  Church,  by  Thomas  Smith,  B,  D.l 

'*  The  infant,  if  well,  is  brought  into  the  Church ;  in  the 
entrance  of  which  is  the  font,  usually  large,  and  about  a  foot 

and  a  half  deep In  the  winter,  that  the  tender  body 

of  the  infant  may  not  suffer  by  cold,  they  for  the  most  part 
warm  the  water,  upon  which  the  Priest  breathes  and  makes 
a  cross,  and  then  poureth  oil  upon  it  in  the  form  of  a  cross, 
three  times,  with  which  having  anointed  the  child,  and  hold- 
ing him  upright  with  his  hands,  his  face  toward  the  east,  he 
performs  the  mystical  rite,  ....  and  at  the  mention  of 
each  person  of  the  Trinity,  the  Priest  dips  the  child  into  the 
water ;  .  .  .  .  which  threefold  immersion,  they  for  the  most 
part  rigidly  retain  ;  .  .  .  .  though  they  do  not  scruple  to  vary 

*  See  also  Palmer,  Orig-ines  Liturgicae,  i.  194,  5.  Assemani  Biblio.  Ori- 
ent. T.  iii.  P.  ii.  p.  243 — 5.  Renaudot,  Liturg.  Oriental.  Coll.  L.  i.  c.  13  ; 
L.  ii.  c.  1. 

t8vo.  Oxford,  1680. 

8* 


86  PRACTICE  OF  THE  GREEK 

from  it  upon  occasion,  being  content  sometimes  to  pour  water 
upon  the  face  of  the  infant  three  times."* 

It  is  not  expressly  said  in  this  work,  whether  the  head  of 
the  person  is  put  under  the  water  or  not,  but  the  account  gives 
us  such  particulars,  as  to  show  that  it  is  impossible  it  could  be 
done.f  Besides,  the  fact  that  pouring  is  sometimes  substitu- 
ted, shows  most  conclusively  that  this  must  be  somewhat  con- 
nected with  the  practice  of  the  other  Oriental  Churches, 
which  we  have  mentioned. 

We  give,  on  the  other  side,  a  quotation  from  "  Theocletus 
Pharmacides,  '  Secretary  of  the  Holy  Synod  of  Niece.'  It 
is  taken  from  a  pamphlet  published  in  Athens,  in  1839,  enti- 
tled, O  pseudonumos  Germanos,  and  is  a  reply  to  an  article  in 
a  religious  periodical  in  Athens,  which  was  attributed  to  Con- 
stantine  CEconomos,  who  wrote  under  the  assumed  signature 
of  Germanos,  the  editor  of  the  periodical.  Hence  the  appel- 
lation j95e«/f/o/iwmo5,  false."  ....  "  It  appears  that  CEcon- 
omos, following  the  Russian  theologians,  held  that  the  mode 
of  Christian  baptism  is  twofold^  being  either  immersion  or  ab- 
lution. On  this  point,  the  Secretary  of  the  Synod  of  Greece 
says,:|: 

"  But  we  ask  the  very  pious  Russian  divines,  where  they 
found  this  twofold  mode  of  baptizing  1  Was  it  in  the  New 
Testament  ?  But  in  that  baptizo,  in  the  command  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  (Matt,  xxviii.  19,)  signifies  nothing  else 
than  that  which  the  same  Greek  word  properly  signifies ;  and 
this  is  manifest  from  the  baptism  of  our  Lord  himself,  who, 
when  he  was  baptized,  went  up  out  of  the  water,  (Matt.  iii. 

*See  Ch.  Mag.,  iii  71,  2. 

t "  The  fonts  of  the  Greek  Church,  even  in  Greece,  are  often,  if  not  gen- 
erally, so  small  that  immersion  is  impracticable,  being  frequently  not  more 
than  a  fool  deep."— E.  A.  S. 

^We  quote  from  a  periodical  that  allows  nothing  but  immersion  to  be 
baptism,  and  give  its  translation. 


AND   RUSSIAN   CHURCHES.  87 

16  ;)  but  he  who  goes  up  out  of  the  water,  goes  down  first 
into  it ;  that  is,  he  is  all  baptized  in  it.  We  learn,  therefore, 
from  the  New  Testament,  one  mode  of  baptizing,  that  by  im- 
mersion, [kataduseos,)  and  immersion  is  no  other  than  an  en- 
tire covering  6y    means    of,  or  in   water Then 

again  the  Russians  were  taught  Christianity  by  us,  and  from 
their  teachers  they  learned  one  and  only  one  mode  of  bap- 
tizing ;  that  by  a  threefold  immersion  and  emersion  of  the  en- 
tire person  baptized  in  the  water  ;  and  this  is  baptism,  accord- 
ing to  the  most  proper  and  Scriptural  meaning  of  the  word." 
(p.  36.) 

Here  then  we  have  an  iramerser's  version  of  a  foreign 
writer  ;  and  what  does  it  prove?  Upon  its  very  face,  it  proves 
Jirst,  that  thirty-five  millions  of  "  the  Greek  Church,"  out  of 
forty-five  millions,  hold,  that  it  is  indifferent  v^hether  baptism  be 
performed  bi/  immersion,  or  any  other  washing;  second,  the 
"  Secretary  of  the  Holy  Synod  of  Niece,"  writing  especially 
to  contradict  this  opinion,  tells  us,  that  baptism  "  is  no  other 
than  an  entire  covering  hy  means  of,  or  in  water ;"  that  is, 
water  enough  must  be  poured  on  to  the  person,  to  wet  him  all 
over,  or  he  must  be  put  into  the  water.  Here,  then,  the 
strongest  advocate  of  immersion,  according  to  his  own  trans- 
lation  of  the  author,  places  the  covering  of  the  person  by 
means  of  pouring  water  on  to  him,  before  that  of  putting  the 
person  into  the  water,  which  is  in  accordance  with  the  con- 
clusion before  drawn,  as  to  the  proper  mode  of  applying  the 
element. 

We  add  here,  another  species  of  evidence,  which  has  been 
hitherto  overlooked,  but  which  can  hardly  fail  to  carry  convinc- 
ing evidence  to  the  minds  of  intelligent  men.  In  early  times, 
when  Christianity  was  first  preached  to  the  different  nations, 
two  different  practices  were  pursued,  in  regard  to  ecclesiastical 
phraseology.  Technical  terms  were  either  transferred  from 
the  Greek,  as  was  done  in  Latin,  or  the  Greek  was  translated. 


88  PRIMITIVE   TRANSLATIONS 

as  was  done  in  most  of  the  languages  of  Europe.  Now  where 
this  was  done,  the  translators  would  select  that  word  in  his 
own  language,  which  would  give  the  leading  and  prominent 
idea  of  the  original,  as  it  was  then  understood.  This  argument, 
as.  applied  to  Baptism,  is  especially  appropriate,  for  if  the 
word  haptizo  had  once  been  introduced  and  naturalized,  it 
would  have  held  its  place. 

Brittano-Celtic.  The  ancient  Britons,  as  we  shall 
show  in  a  subsequent  chapter,  were  certainly  converted  to 
Christianity  in  the  second,  in  all  probability  in  the  first,  cen- 
tury. In  this  language,  the  word  baptizo  was  translated,  not 
transferred.  The  Brittano-Celtic  word  for  baptism,  was 
bedyz ;  which  denotes  primarily  "  a  giving,  a  gift,  a  prepara- 
tion, a  setting  apart,  or  consecration."  No  reference  whatev- 
er is  here  made  to  the  mode  of  baptism.  The  derivatives 
are,  bedyza  and  bedyzvan,  "  a  font,  or  baptistry ;"  bedyzian, 
"  to  baptize."  So  also,  bedyz  yr  Ysbryd  Gldn,  was  "  bap- 
tism of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  or  "  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost," 
and  bedyz  esgob,  confirmation,  or  Bishop' s-baptism*  The 
mode  of  baptism  could  not  have  been  the  leading  idea  in  the 
minds  of  the  Britons. 

Hiberno-Celtic.  Christianity  had  made  considerable 
progress  in  Ireland,  before  the  time  of  St.  Patrick,  who  was 
ordained  Bishop  of  Ireland,  A.  D.  433.  They  used  words  in 
their  own  language  to  denote  the  several  rites  and  ceremonies 
of  religion.  Hence,  baptism  was  called  "  baiste ;"  to  bap- 
tize, "  baisd-im."  The  original  and  proper  meaning  of  this 
word  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact,  that  a  derivative  from  the 
same  root,  "  baist-each,^^  is  used  to  denote  rain.  Conse- 
quently, among  the  ancient  Irish,  the  mode  of  baptism  was 
thought  of,  and  consequently,  baptism  must  have  originally 
been  performed  in  Ireland  by  sprinkling  or  pouring.] 

*  Owen's  Geiriadur  Cymraeg  a  Seasong,  2  vols.  4lo.  London,  1793. 
t  O'Briens'  Focaloir  Gaoighilge-Sacs-Phearla,  8vo.  Dublin,  1832. 


OF  THE  WORD  BAPTIZO.  89 

Scoto-Celtic.  Christianity  was  preached  in  Scotland 
about  the  same  time  as  in  Ireland,  and  the  same  words  are 
employed  to  denote  the  rite  of  baptism  ;  baist,  "  to  baptize  ;" 
baisteadh,  "  baptism."  The  kindred  words  from  the  same 
root,  are,  baistidh,  "  drops  of  water  from  the  eaves,"  and 
baiseach,   "  a  shower  of  rain."* 

McEso-GoTHs.  The  Goths  appear  to  have  been  convert- 
ed to  Christianity  some  time  before  A.  D.  300,  as  the  signa- 
ture of  the  Gothic  Bishop,  Theophilus  of  Bosphorus,  Metro- 
politan of  the  Goths,  stands  to  the '  decrees  of  the  Council  of 
Nice,  A.  D.  325.1  But  the  Bible  was  not  translated  into  that 
language  until  about  A.  D,  400,  when  it  was  done  by  Ulfilas, 
Bishop  of  the  Moeso-Goths.|  He  employs  daup,  cognate 
with  our  word  dip,  to  denote  baptism. §  From  the  Gothic, 
this  word  was  adopted  into  German,  and  several  other  north- 
ern languages,  at  a  much  later  period  ;  Dutch,  doopen  ;  German, 
taufen.  But  that  Ulfilas  did  not  use  daupen,  to  denote  dipping, 
is  evident  from  his  language.  Thus,  he  says,  (Mark  i.  8,) 
"  Ik  daupja  izwis  in  watin,  is  daupeith  izwis  in  Ahmin  Wei- 
hamma  ;  I  baptize  (dip)  you  in  water,  he  shall  baptize  (dip) 
you  in  the  Holy  Ghost." 

Anglo-Saxon.  The  Anglo-Saxons  were  converted,  from 
A.  D.  590  to  610,  and  they  also  used  a  word  in  their  own  lan- 
guage to  denote  this  rite.  The  word  chosen  by  them  was 
"yw//^■a?/,"  "  to  whiten,  cleanse,  purify,"  from  whence  came 
"  fulluht,"    baptism;  and  ^'- fulluhtere^''\  ^  baptizer.     Nothing 

*  Dictionarum  Scoto-Cellicum,  2  vols.  4to.  Lond.  and  Edin.  183G.  Our 
English  w^oid  to  baste,  used  in  cooker}'-,  to  signify  moistening  by  pouring  on 
a  fluid,  is  a  Brittano-Saxon  word. 

fSoc.  Ecc.  H.  L.  ii,  c.  41. 

ifSoc.  Ecc.  H.  iv.  27,  Sozem.  vi.  37,  and  Hug.  Intd.  N.  T.,  P.  I.  §  138. 

§  Zahn's  Ulfilas,  Weissenfels,  4to.  1805,  in  Glossar.,  and  Matt.  ii.  11  ; 
Mark  i.  4  ;   vii.  4,8;  Luke  iii.  3,  21 ;  John  xiii.  20. 

II  Matt.  iii.  1,  11  ;  xxi.  25;  Sax.  Chron.  24,  25,  26,  28,  29,  32,  39,  etc. 
Bede,  Ecc.  Hist.  i.  27,  ii.  2,  iii.  21.  Elf.  Ep.  i.  c.  20,  23,  40. 


9d 


PRIMITIVE   TK  AN  SLAT  IONS 


can  bo  certainly  learnt  trom  tiiis  langnago,  concerning  the 
mode  of  baptism  ;  but  this  we  may  certainly  learn,  tliat  the 
Anglo-Saxons  reg-arded  the  moral  sisj^nification,  and  not  the 
modt.  as  imj^H^rtant.  Some  of  the  Lexicons  give  '*  liyp-jxin" 
to  dip,*  as  one  of  the  words  used  by  the  Anglo-Saxons,  to  de- 
note to  baptize,  but  Ave  have  never  seen  an  instance  of  its 
use  in  that  sense.  "  FttUuht''  is  used  in  the  Creeds,  in  the 
Scriptures,  and  such  of  the  Homilies  as  we  have  been  able  to 
examine. 

Dutch.  The  Dutch  version  of  the  Scripture  has  been 
appealed  to  by  some,  as  evidence  on  this  subject.  But  that  is 
altogether  too  late  to  be  pertinent.  Besides,  the  Dutch  were 
converted  by  Anglo-Saxon  missionaries.  Willibord,  the  first 
missionary  there,  having  been  consecrated  Bishop  by  Wilfred, 
for  some  time  Archbishop  of  York,  A.  D.  t^90.j  and  founded 
the  See  of  I'trecht.  A.  D.  097.|  The  Dutch,  therefore,  de- 
rived Christianity  trom  the  Anglo-Saxons,  who  did  not  reg-ard 
the  mode  of  baptism  as  essential ;  and  they  copied  tlieir  trans- 
lation of  baptisoy  from  the  Mceso-Goihic,  where  daupen  could 
not  signify  i/ivn^sion.  Besides,  doop  does  not  signify  immer- 
sion. Thus  in  the  Rubric  to  the  baptismal  service  it  is 
said,  "he  shall  dip  (' dompelen')  the  child  in  the  water;''  or 
"  pour  water  upon  it,"  and  shall  say  :  ''  I  baptize  (doop)  thee," 
&c.  Here  is  a  distinction  made  between  dipping  and  hap- 
tising  ;^  and  consequently  they  can  not  mean  the  same  thing. 
The  same  may  be  said  of  the  German  "  taufen,"  to  baptijse; 
and  " eintunken,*' "  eintanchen,"  to  dip^  to  immerse.  In  ad- 
dition to  this,  we  also  give  the  signification  of  the  following 

•  jyyp-paH  is  the  common  word  iii  the  Sttxon  Scriptures  where  dip  occurs 
in  English  ,;  ftdluht,  when  the  word  baptism  is  I'ouud. 

t  Bede,  V.  11, 12.     Alcnin.  Vit.  Will. 

^  Hist.  Episc.  UUraj.  p.  1,  in  Bos.  Diss.  Orijr.  Germ.  L;»nsr.  p.  xciv. 

§  Hcl  Bock,  der  Gewone  Gebeilcn,  lOmo.  Amstenlara,  1S3S.  Sec  also, 
Vaiuler  KcinpCatechismus,  4lo..  Rottcnlam,  IT'JS.  p.  .316. 


OF   Tin:    WOItD    V.M'TVAO.  91 

words  :  doopcn,  "to  baptize  ;"  (looping,  "washing  ;"  dompe- 
len,  "  to  flip,  to  cover  with  water,  to  dip  in  water  ;"  dornpel- 
doop,  "  to  baptize  by  immersion."* 

These  considerations  prove  most  conclusively,  to  our  minds, 
that  the  mode  of  baptism  was  not  regarded  as  important  by 
the  early  Christians,  for  had  it  been,  it  is  perfectly  incredible 
tliat  those  who  received  Christianity,  if  not  from  the  Apostles 
themselves,  from  their  immediate  disciples,  should  make  no 
allusion  to  it,  in  the   words  employed  to  denote  it. 

Having  ascertained  who  composed  the  Apostolic  Church, 
we  proceed  to  inquire,  v^ho  wara  communicants  in  that  Church  ? 
Wo  answer,  only  those  who  had  received,  or  were  desirous  of 
receiving  the  rite  of  Confirmation.  By  Confirmation,  we 
mean  a  rite  which  existed  in  the  Apostolic  Church,  sometimes 
called  "  receiving  the  Holy  Ghost,"  at  others,  "  Confirma- 
tion," and  at  others,  "the  doctrine  of  the  laying  on  of  hands," 
and  which  consisted  in  the  laying  on  of  an  Aposthis  hands  upon 
tjbose  who  had  been  baptized,  accompanied  by  a  public  profes- 
sion of  the  faith  of  the  person  confirmed.  As  the  examina- 
tion of  this  point  belongs  properly  to  the  "  power  and  duties  of 
an  Apostle,"  we  shall  only  remark  here,  that  if  we  find  this 
rite  existing  in  the  various  Churches,  it  was  the  duty  of  those 
who  had  received  baptism,  to  receive  this  also,  for  we  are  not 
at  liberty  to  suppose  that  the  Apostles  established  any  thing 
unmeaning  or  unnecessary. 


CHAPTER  X, 

REQUISITES  OF   BAPTISM CREEDS. 

Having  ascertained  who  were  proper  subjects  of  baptism, 
and  how  it  was  to  be  administered,  we  shall  inquire,  what  was 


*  Nederduitsche  "Woriel-Worden,  8vo.  Amsterdam,  1741. 


9^  REQUISITES  OF  BAPTISM. 

required  of  those  who  came  to  baptism  ?  To  this  inquiry  the 
answer  is  obvious,  in  all  parts  of  the  New  Testament.  Faith 
and  repentance  are  everywhere  required,  as  pre-requisites  of 
baptism.  What  were  all  the  articles  of  faith  required  by  the 
Apostles,  we  are  not  told.  But  in  the  case  of  the  Eunuch,  it 
was  expressly  required,  that  he  should  profess  his  faith  in  the 
Son  of  God.     (Acts  viii  37.) 

In  the  age  next  succeeding  the  Apostles,  we  know  the  arti- 
cles of  belief  were  embodied  in  what  we  now  call  a  Creed. 
Among  the  Latin  Fathers,  it  was  called  The  Rule  of  Faith, 
(regula  fidei.)*  It  was  also  called  the  Canon,  or  Rule  of 
Faith,  by  the  Council  of  Antioch,  about  26.5. f  In  later  wri- 
ters it  has  still  other  names. 

This  Irenaeus  says|  was  an  "  unalterable  Canon,"  which 
*'  the  Church,  though  it  be  dispersed  over  all  the  world,  from 
one  end  of  the  earth  to  the  other,  received  from  the  Apostles, 
and  their  disciples. "§  And  TertuUian  frequently  mentions  its 
being  used  at  baptism.  ||  Several  of  the  early  writers  have 
given  the  substance  of  the  creed,  as  it  was  in  their  day.  The 
following  are  some  of  the  earliest  accounts  of  it. 

Substance  of  the  Creed,  as  given  by  Irenaeus,  A.  D.  175  :^ 

"  The  Church,  though  it  be  dispersed  over  all  the  world 
from  one  end  of  the  earth  to  the  other,  received  from  the 
Apostles  and  their  disciples,  the  belief  in  one  God  the  Fa- 
ther Almighty,  maker  of  heaven,  and  earth,  and  sea,  and  all 
things  in  them  :  and  in  one  Christ  Jesus,  the  Son  of  God, 
who  was  incarnate  for  our  salvation  :  and  in  the  Holy  Ghost, 
who  preached  by  the  prophets  the  dispensations  of  God  :  and 
the  advent,  and  nativity  of  a  virgin,  and  passion,  resurrection 
from  the  dead,  and  bodily   ascension   of  the  flesh  of  his  be- 

*Iren.  i.  19.  Terl.  De  Praes.  c.  13,  De  Veland.  Virg.  c.  i.  Jerome,  Ep. 
54.     Ad  Marcel. 

tEuseb.  vii.  30.  :{:  Adv.  Haer.  i.  1.  §i.  2. 

II  See  De  Bap.  c.  6,  De  Pras.  c.  13,  14,  21,  27.         IT  L.  i.  c.  2. 


CREED  OF  IREN^US OF  TERTULLIAN.  93 

loved  Son,  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord,  into  heaven  ;  and  his 
coming  again  from  heaven  in  the  glory  of  the  Father,  to  con- 
summate all  things,  and  raise  the  flesh  of  all  mankind  :  that 
according  to  the  will  of  the  invisible  Father,  every  knee 
should  bow,  of  things  in  heaven,  and  things  in  the  earth,  and 
things  under  the  earth,  to  Jesus  Christ,  our  Lord,  and  God, 
and  Saviour,  and  King ;  and  that  every  tongue  should  confess 
him  ;  and  that  He  shall  exercise  just  judgment  upon  all,  and 
send  spiritual  wickedness,  the  transgressing  and  apostate  an- 
gels, with  all  ungodly,  unrighteous,  and  blaspheming  men,  into 
everlasting  fire  ;  but  grant  life  to  all  righteous  and  holy  men, 
that  keep  his  commandments  and  persevere  in  his  love,  some 
from  the  beginning,  others  after  repentance,  on  whom  he  con- 
fers immortality  and  invests  them  with  eternal  glory." 

Substance  of  the  Creed  as  given  by  Tertullian,   about  195.* 

*'  There  is,"  says  he,  "  one  rule  of  faith  only  which  admits 
of  no  change  or  alteration,  that  teaches  us  to  believe  in  one 
God  Almighty,  the  Maker  of  the  world ;  and  in  Jesus 
Christ,  his  Son,  who  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  crucified 
under  Pontius  Pilate,  the  third  day  arose  again  from  the  dead, 
received  into  heaven  ;  he  sitteth  now  at  the  right  hand  of  God, 
who  shall  come  again  to  judge  both  the  quick  and  the  dead,  by 
the  resurrection  of  the  flesh." 

In  his  book  de  Pnescriptis,  and  also  in  that  against  Praxeas, 
he  has  other  forms  substantially  the  same,  with  the  addition  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Sanc- 
tifier  and  Comforter. t 

Substance  of  the  Creed  as  given  by  Origen,  about  A.  D. 
230.:|: 

"  The  things,"  says  he,  *'  which  are  manifestly  handed 
down  by  Apostolical  teaching,  are  these  :  first.  That  there  is 

*De  Veland.  Virg.  c.  1.  Adv.  Prax.  c  2.  fC.  13,  Prax.  c.  2. 

7  Peri  Archon,  in  Pref.  Tom.  i.  p.  6G5,  in  Bing.  Aut.  Ecc.  B.  x.  c.  1,  §  2. 

9 


94  CREED  OF  ORIGEN. 

one  God,  wlio  created  and  made  all  things,  and  caused  the 
whole  universe  to   exist  out  of  nothing  ;  the  God  of  all  the 
just  that  ever  were  from  the  first  creation  and  foundation  of 
all ;  the  God  of  Adam,  Abel,  Seth,  Enos,  Enoch,  Noe,  Sem, 
Abraham,  Isaac,  Jacob,  the  twelve  Patriarchs,  Moses  and  the 
Prophets  ;  and  that  this  God,  in  the  last  days,  as  he  had  prom- 
ised before  by  his  Prophets,  sent  our   Lord   Jesus  Christ, 
first  to  call  Israel  and  then  the  Gentiles,  after  the  infidelity  of 
his  people  Israel.     This  just  and  good  God,  the  Father  of  our 
Lord   Jesus  Christ,  gave  both  the  Law  and  the  Prophets, 
and  the  Gospels,  being  the  God  of  the  Apostles,  and  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testament."     The  next  article  is,  "  that  Jesus 
Christ,  who  came  into  the  world,  was  begotten  of  the  Father 
before  every  creature,   who   ministered  to  his  Father  in  the 
creation  of  all  things,  (for  by  him  all  things  were  made,)  in 
the  last  times  made  himself  of  no  reputation  and  became  man  ; 
he  who  was  God,  was  made  flesh,  and  when  he  was  man,  he 
continued  the  same   God  that  he  was  before.     He  assumed  a 
body  in  all  things  like  ours,  save  only  that  it  was  born  of  a 
virgin  by  the  Holy  Ghost.     And  because  this  Jesus  Christ 
was  born  and  suffered  death  common  to  all,  in  truth,  and  not 
only  in  appearance,   he   was  truly  dead ;  for  he  rose  again 
truly  from  the  dead,  and  after  his  resurrection  conversed  with 
his  disciples,  and  was  taken  up  into  heaven.     They  also  de- 
livered unto  us,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  was  joined  in  the  same 
honor  and  dignity  with  the  Father  and  the  Son." 
In  another  place  he  gives  it  more  briefly,  thus  :* 
"  I  believe  there  is  one  God,  the  Creator  and  Maker  of  all 
things  ;  and  one  that  is  from  him  God  the  word,  who  is  consub- 
stantial  with  him,  and  co-eternal,  who  in  the  last  times  took 
human  nature  upon  him  of  [the  Virgin]  Mary,  and  was  cruci- 
fied, and  raised  again  from  the   dead.     I   believe  also  the 
Holy  Ghost,  who  exists  from  all  eternity." 

*  Cont.  Marc.  Dial.  i.  p.  815.     Tom.  2,  p.  815.     Ed.  Bas.  1571. 


CREED  OF  CYPRIAN- — OF  GREGORY.  96 

The  substance  of  the  Creed  is  given  by  Cyprian,  about 
A.  D.  250,  in  which  he  enumerates  all  the  articles  included 
in  the  foregoing,  but  in  the  form  of  questions.* 

Substance  of  the  Creed,  as  far  as  it  relates  to  the  Holy 
Trinity,  as  given  by  Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  about  A.  D.  270,t 

"  There  is  one  God,  the  Father  of  the  living  Word,  the 
subsisting  wisdom  and  power,  the  eternal  express  image  of 
God,  who  is  a  Perfect  begetter  of  a  Perfect,  a  Father  of  an 
only  begotten  Son.  And  one  Lord,  one  of  one,  God  of  God, 
the  character  and  image  of  the  Godhead,  the  word  of  power, 
the  wisdom  that  comprehends  the  whole  system  of  the  world, 
the  power  that  made  every  creature.  The  true  Son  of  the 
true  Father,  invisible  of  invisible,  incorruptible  of  incorrupti- 
ble, immortal  of  immortal,  eternal  of  eternal.  And  one  Holy 
Ghost,  who  has  his  existence  from  God,  who  was  manifested 
to  men  by  the  Son,  the  perfect  image  of  the  perfect  Son,  the 
living  cause  of  all  living,  the  fountain  of  holiness,  essential 
sanctity,  who  is  the  author  of  holiness  in  others.  In  whom 
God  the  Father  is  manifested,  who  is  above  all  and  in  all,  and 
God  the  Son,  whose  power  runs  through  all  things.  A  per- 
fect Trinity,  whose  glory,  eternity,  and  dominion  is  no  way 
divided  or  separated  from  each  other.  In  this  Trinity,  there- 
fore, there  is  nothing  created  or  servile,  nothing  adventitious 
or  extraneous,  that  did  not  exist  before,  but  afterward  came 
into  it.  The  Father  was  never  without  the  Son,  nor  the  Son 
without  the  Spirit,  but  the  Trinity  abides  the  same,  unchange- 
able and  invariable  forever." 

Substance  of  the  Creed  as  given  by  Lucian,  the  Martyr, 
about  A.  D.  280.| 

"  We  believe,  according  to  the   tradition  of  the  Gospels, 

*  Ep.  Gy,  70,  76.         t  C^i'eg-  Nys.  iii  Biag.  Ant.  Eec.  x.  c.  4,  §  5. 
X  Athan.   De  Synod.   Arinin.   et  Seleuc.    Socr,  Ecc.  His.  L.  ii.  c  10. 
Hilarj^,  De  Synodis.  p.  107. 


96  CREED  OF  LUCIAN,  THE  MARTYR. 

and  Apostles,  in  one  God,  the  Father,  Ahnighty,  Creator,  and 
Maker,  and  Governor  of  all  things,  of  whom  are  all  things  : 
and  in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  his  only  begotten  Son,  who  is 
God,  by  whom  are  all  things,  who  was  begotten  of  the  Father, 
God  of  God,  Whole  of  Whole,  One  of  One,  Perfect  of  Per- 
fect, King  of  King,  Lord  of  Lord,  the  Word,  the  Wisdom, 
the  Life,  the  true  Light,  the  true  Way,  the  Resurreciion,  the 
Shepherd,  the  Gate,  the  incommutable  and  unchangeable  im- 
age of  the  divine  essence,  power  and  glory,  the  first-bom  of 
every  creature,  who  was  always  from  the  beginning,  God,  the 
Word  with  God,  according  to  what  is  said  in  the  Gospel ; 
'and the  Word  was  God,'  by  whom  all  things  were  made  and 
in  whom  all  things  subsist,  who  in  the  last  days  descended 
from  on  high,  and  was  born  of  a  virgin  according  to  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  being  the  Lamb  of  God,  he  was  made  the  Mediator 
between  God  and  man,  being  fore-ordained  to  be  the  author  of 
our  faith  and  life  :  for  he  said,  '  I  came  not  from  heaven  to  do 
my  own  will,  but  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me.'  Who  suffered 
and  rose  again  for  us  the  third  day,  and  ascended  into  heaven, 
and  sitteth  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Father  ;  and  he  shall  come 
again  with  glory  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead.  And  we 
believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is  given  to  believers  for 
their  consolation,  and  sanctification,  and  consummation,  ac- 
cording to  what  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  appointed  his  disci- 
ples, saying,  '  Go,  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.' 
Whence  the  properties  of  the  Father  are  manifest,  denoting 
him  to  be  truly  a  father,  and  the  properties  of  the  Son,  deno- 
ting him  to  be  truly  a  Son,  and  the  properties  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  denoting  him  to  be  truly  the  Holy  Ghost  :  these 
names  not  being  simply  put  and  to  no  purpose,  but  to  express 
the  particular  subsistence,  or  hypostatic  substance,  of  each 
person  named,  so  as  to  denote  them  to  be  three  in  hypostasis, 
and  one  by  consent." 


CREED  OF  JERUSALEM OF  ALEXANDRIA.  97 

Creed  of  the  Church  of  Jerusalem,  A.  D.  300.* 
"  I  believe  in  one  God,  the  Father  Ahnighty,  Maker  of 
heaven  and  earth,  and  of  all  things  visible  and  invisible  ;  and 
in  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God, 
begotten  of  the  Father  before  all  ages,  the  true  God,  by  whom 
all  things  were  made,  who  was  incarnate  and  made  man,  who 
M^as  crucified  and  buried,  and  the  third  day  he  rose  again  from 
the  dead,  and  ascended  into  heaven,  and  sitteth  on  the  right 
hand  of  the  Father,  and  shall  come  to  judge  the  quick  and 
dead,  of  whose  kingdom  there  shall  be  no  end.  And  in  the 
Holy  Ghost,  the  Comforter,  who  spake  by  the  Prophets.  In 
one  baptism  of  repentance,  in  the  remission  of  sins,  in  one 
Catholic  Church,  in  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh,  and  in  the 
life  everlasting." 

Creed  of  the  Church  of  Alexandria,  about  the  same  time.f 
"  We  believe  in  one  God,  the  Father  Almighty,  and  in  Je- 
sus Christ  his  Son,  our  Lord,  God  the  Word,  begotten  of 
Him  before  all  ages  ;  by  whom  all  things  were  made,  that  are 
in  heaven  and  in  earth  ;  who  came  down  from  heaven,  and 
was  incarnate,  and  suflered,  and  rose  again,  and  ascended  into 
heaven,  and  shall  come  again  to  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead. 
And  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  in  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh, 
and  in  the  life  of  the  world  to  come,  and  in  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  and  in  one  Catholic  Church  of  God,  extended  from 
one  end  of  the  earth  to  the  other." 

Creed  of  the  Church  of  Antioch,  about  the  same  time.| 
"  I  believe  in  one  only  true  God,  the  Father  Almighty,  Ma- 
ker of  all  creatures  visible  and  invisible  ;  and  in  Jesus  Christ 
our  Lord,  his  only  begotten  Son,  the  first  born  of  every  crea- 
ture, born  of  Him  before  all  ages,  and  not  made,  very  God  of 
very  God,  [consubstantial]  with  the  Father ;  by  whom  the  world 
was  framed  and  all  things  made  ;  who  for  our  sakes  came,  and 

*  Cyril.  Cat.  6.  f  Soc.  L.  i.  c.  26.  %  Cass.  De  Incar.  L.  iv. 


98  CREED  OF  ANTIOCH. 

was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  was  crucified  under  Pontius 
Pilate,  was  buried,  and  the  third  day  rose  according  to  the 
Scriptures,  and  ascended  into  heaven,  and  shall  come  again  to 
judge  the  quick  and  the  dead." 

We  have  given  these  several  Creeds,  to  show  how  general 
they  were,  and  also  to  show  what  was  the  faith  of  the  primi- 
tive Church,  on  some  of  the  most  important  doctrines  of  the 
gospel.  The  first,  however,  are  to  be  regarded  rather  as  the 
substance  of  the  Creeds,  than  as  the  Creeds  themselves. 

From  this  collection  of  primitive  Creeds,  it  will  be  seen, 
that  those  who  came  to  baptism,  were  required  to  profess 
their  faith  in  all  the  gTeat  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gos- 
pel ;  especially  in  the  following : 

1.  In  one  God,  the  Father  Almighty,  the  Creator  of  all 
things. 

2.  In  Jesus  Christ,  begotten  of  the  Father  before  all  ages  ; 
in  his  nativity,  passion,  burial,  resurrection,  ascension;  and 
future  coming  to  judgment. 

3.  In  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  is  the  Sanctifier  and  Com- 
forter. 

4.  That  this  Trinity  of  persons  constitutes  one  only  God, 
the  same  in  substance,  and  all  equally  eternal. 


CHAPTER  XL 

POWERS  AND  DUTIES  OF  THE  MEMBERS  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

1.  It  was  their  duty  to  assemble  themselves  together,  on 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  for  the  purpose  of  public  worship, 
and  religious  instruction. 

This  appears  most  manifestly  from  the  Apostolic  history. 
Thus,  they  were  assembled  together,  "  with  one  accord,  in 
one  place,  when  they  received  the  Holy  Ghost."     (Acts  ii. 


PUBLIC  WORSHIP  ON  SUNDAY.  99 

1,4;  iv.  31.)  And  this,  as  one  may  see,  by  reference  to  the 
Jewish  festivals,  was  on  the  first  day  of  the  week.  So  at 
Antioch,  Paul  and  Barnabas  "  assembled  with  the  Church,  for 
the  space  of  a  year,"  (Acts  xi.  26  ;)  and  Paul  commands  the 
Hebrews  not  to  '■^forsake  the  assemhling  of  themselves  to- 
gether:'    (Heb.  X.  25.) 

That  this  assemhling  was  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  we 
learn  from  the  same  source.  Paul,  in  one  of  his  journeys 
through  the  cities  of  Asia,  "  stopped  at  Troas  seven  days. 
And  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  when  the  disciples  came  to- 
gether to  break  bread,  Paul  preached."  (Acts  xx.  6,  7.)  That 
this  assembling  of  the  Church  at  Troas  was  no  extraordinary  or 
unusual  meeting,  but  the  common  and  ordinary  one,  appears 
plainly  from  the  language,  "  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  when 
the  disciples  came  together  to  break  bread;''  that  is,  to  partake 
of  the  Lord's  Supper.  (Acts  ii.  42,  46;  1  Cor.  x.  16,  17; 
xi.  23.)  Besides,  the  fact  that  it  is  not  said  to  be  an  unusual 
or  extraordinary  thing,  is  conclusive  evidence  that  it  was 
something  usual  and  customary. 

To  the  same  effect  is  the  command  of  St.  Paul,  to  the 
Church  at  Corinth :  "On  the  first  day  of  the  week,  let  every 
one  of  you  '  lay  up  in  store,'*  as  God  hath  prospered  him  ; 
that  there  he  no  gatherings  when  I  come."  (1  Cor.  xvi.  2.) 
"  That  there  be  no  gatherings  when  I  come"  implies  that  there 
should  be  a  gathering  before  he  came  ;  that  is,  when  the  alms 
were  laid  by  in  the  treasury;  or,  on  the  first  day  of  the  week. 

The  same  account  distinctly  alludes  to  the  object  of  this 
assembling.  At  Troas,  "  the  disciples  came  together  on  the 
first  day  of  the  week  to  break  bread,  and  Paul  preached  unto 
them."  (Acts  xx.  7.)  At  Antioch,  also,  Paul  and  Barnabas, 
when  "assembled  with  the  Church,  taught  the  people,"  (Acts 
xi.  26,)  things  wliich  are  only  suitable  for  public  assemblies, 
and  belong  mainly  to  religious  worship. 

*  Rob.  p.  374. 


100  PRIMITIVE  WORSHIP  WITH  A  LITURGY. 

In  the  absence  of  every  thing  opposed  to  the  conclusion,  we 
may  safely  affirm,  that  these  direct  references  fully  prove,  that 
the  members  of  the  Apostolic  Church  assembled  together  on 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  for  public  worship,  religious  instruc- 
tion^ and  celebrating  the  Lord's  Supper;  and  hence  it  is  safe 
to  conclude,  that  it  was  their  duty  to  do  so. 

Such,  too,  was  the  practice  of  the  Church  in  the  age  next 
succeeding  the  Apostles.  Pliny,  Governor  of  Bithynia,  A.  D. 
110,  tells  the  Roman  Emperor,*  that  the  Christians  "met  on 
a  certain  stated  day,"  for  religious  worship.  This  day,  Igna- 
tius, A.  D.  107,  calls  "  the  Lord's  day,"t  the  name  by  which 
it  is  designated  by  St.  John.  (Rev.  i.  10.)  It  is  called  by 
Justin  Martyr,  "  Sunday,"  because  it  is  the  first  day  in  which 
"  God  changed  darkness  and  matter,  and  made  the  world,"  On 
"  the  same  day,  also,  Jesus  Christ  rose  from  the  dead,"J  on 
which  day  "they  assemble  for  public  worship. "§  The  same 
thing  is  noticed  by  Tertullian,  A.  D.  185,||  and  by  numerous 
subsequent  writers. 

2.  When  thus  assembled,  they  were  all  to  take  part  in  the 
services,  according  to  some  order  or  form  which  was  made 
use  of  in  the  Church. 

The  Colossians  were  directed  "to  teach  and  admonish  one 
another,"  or,  as  Professor  Robinson  renders  it,  one  to  an- 
other,^ "  in  psalms,  and  hymns,  and  spiritual  songs."  (Col. 
iii.  16.)  This  "  teaching  and  exhorting  one  to  another,"  could 
only  be  performed  when  they  were  assembled  together ;  and 
if,  when  assembled  together,  must  have  been  done  according 
to  some  form  or  order  previously  established  or  agreed  upon, 
or  else  be  productive  of  endless  disorder  and  confusion.  That 
it  was  not  to  be  done  according  to  every  man's  fancy,  but 
agreeably  to  some  established  system,  is  a  necessary  infer- 


*  Ep.  L.  X.  Ep.  97.        t  Ep.  Mag.  c.  9.  if  Apol.  i.  c.  ) 

§  C.  87.  II  De  Cor.  Mil.  c.  3,  etc.        IT  Rob.  21&. 


SCRIPTURE   EVIDENCE  OF   LITURGIES.  101 

ence  from  the  censure  cast  upon  the  Corinthians  for  irregu- 
larities in  this  particular,  as  well  as  from  the  language  made 
use  of  by  the  Apostle  in  condemning  those  practices.  "  How 
is  it,  brethren,"  saith  he,  "  when  ye  come  together,  every 
one  of  you  hath  a  psalm,  a  doctrine,  a  tongue,  a  revelation,  or 
an  interpretation  ?  God  is  not  the  author  of  confusion,  but  of 
peace,  as  in  all  the  Churches  of  the  saints.  Let  all  things  be 
done  decently,  and  in  order.''''  (1  Cor.  xiv.  26,  33,  40,  kata 
taxin,  "  according  to  arrangement,  disposition,  or  series")* 
The  existence  of  a  series,  or  an  order,  implies  ^^xe-arrange- 
ment,  and  the  language  in  this  case,  like  the  case  put  in  chap- 
ter second,  is  intelligible  only  by  supposing  the  existence  of 
some  form,  previously  established,  to  which  reference  is  here 
made. 

The  Ephesians,  also,  were  directed  to  be  "  filled  with  the 
spirit ;  speaking  among  themselves,''^  or,  as  Robinson  says,  "  one 
to  another, ^^  in  psalms,  and  hymns,  and  spiritual  songs."  (Eph. 
V.  18,  19.)  These  "psalms,  and  hymns,  and  spiritual  songs," 
were  of  necessity  precomposed  forms,  and  the  persons  using 
them  "  spoke  and  exhorted  one  to  another,  according  to 
[some]  arrangement,  disposition,  or  series."  Now  the  only 
"  arrangement  or  series,"  by  which  public  worship  could  be 
carried  on  by  the  whole  assembly,  without  producing  "  confu- 
sion in  the  Churches,"  is,  that  one  or  more  should  speak,  and 
the  rest  reply  by  way  of  response.  This,  however,  applies 
only  to  those  portions  of  worship,  which  were  carried  on  by 
means  of  "  psalms,  and  hymns,  and  spiritual  songs  ;"  for  in 
praying  and  giving  thanks,  the  speakers  were  directed  to  use 
"  words  easy  to  be  understood,"  (1  Cor.  xiv.  9 — 15  ;)  or  else 
how,  saith  the  Apostle,  "  shall  he  that  is  unlearned,^  say 
Amen  ?"  (v.  16.)  This  allusion  to  the  practice  of  respond- 
ing Amen  to  the  prayers  of  the  speaker,  is  the  only  thing  on 

*  Rob.  420,  806.  f  Rob.  470  and  215.  +  Rob.  52. 


K)2  SCRIPTURE  EVIDENCE  OF  LITURGIES. 

the  subject  in  all  the  New  Testament,  and  is,  therefore,  pre- 
cisely parallel  to  the  supposed  case  of  "  beating  the  revelly," 
which  we  have  before  put ;  and  for  reasons  there  given,  com- 
pels us  to  believe  that  it  was  the  custom  in  the  Apostolic 
Church  for  the  people  to  respond.  Amen,  to  the  prayer  of  the 
speaker.  Justin  Martyr,  A.  D.  150,  says  that  this  was  then 
the  universal  practice  in  the  Church.* 

Should  there  be  any  doubt  whether  the  Apostle,  in  writing 
to  the  Ephesians  and  Colossians,  referred  to  public  worship, 
it  will  vanish  at  once,  if  a  comparison  is  instituted  between 
that,  and  the  account  in  Corinthians. 

In  Ephesians  and  Colossians,  the  argument  is  not  only 
similar,  but  the  language  in  which  it  is  clothed  is  the  same. 
To  the  Colossians,  he  says  :  "  Teach  and  exhort,  one  to  an- 
other, in  psalms,  and  hymns,  and  spiritual  songs,  singing  with 
grace  in  your  hearts  to  the  Lord.  And  whatsoever  ye  do,  in 
word  or  deed,  do  all  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  giving 
thanks  to  God,  and  the  Father  by  him.  Wives,  submit  your- 
selves unto  your  own  husbands,  as  it  is  fit  in  the  Lord."  (Col. 
iii.  17,18.) 

To  the  Ephesians,  he  says  :  "  Speaking  one  to  another,  in 
psalms,  and  hymns,  and  spiritual  songs,  and  [psallontes) 
chanting,^  in  your  hearts  to  the  Lord  ;  giving  thanks  always 
for  all  things  unto  God  and  the  Father,  in  the  name  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Wives,  submit  yourselves  unto  your 
own  husbands,  as  unto  the  Lord."     (Eph.  v.  19,  22.) 

In  Corinthians,  the  argument  is  parallel ;  and  the  language, 
though  not  the  same,  is  very  similar  ;  but  with  this  difference, 
that  the  Apostle  speaks  expressly  of  public  worship.  "  How 
is  it,  then,  brethren  ?  when  ye  come  together,  [in  the  Church,] 
/vv.  23,  28,  34,)  every  one  of  you  hath  a  psalm,  hath  a  doc- 

*  Apol.  i.  c.  87.  tRo'->-  904. 


PRIMITIVE   EVIDENCE  OF  LITURGIES.  103 

trine,  hath  a  tongue,  hath  a  revelation.*  Let  all  things  be 
done  unto  edifying.  Let  your  women  keep  silence  in  the 
Churches,  for  they  are  commanded  to  be  under  obedience,  as 
also  saith  the  law ;  and  if  they  will  learn  any  thing,  let  them 
ask  their  husbands  at  home."     (1  Cor.  xiv.  26,  34,  35.) 

In  all  three  Epistles,  therefore,  the  argument  is  the  same, 
saving  that  in  the  two  first,  the  language  is  that  of  direction, 
in  the  last,  of  censure  ; — the  mode  of  conducting  it  the  same, 
and  the  language  in  which  it  is  clothed,  similar  ;  and  as  one 
refers  expressly  to  public  worship,  the  only  reasonable  infer- 
ence is,  that  the  others  relate  to  the  same  thing.  These  pas- 
sages, therefore,  in  the  absence  of  all  contradiction,  prove  most 
inconte stably,  the  use  of  precomposed  forms  in  the  Apostolic 
Church ;  and  they  refer  directly  to  the  practice  of  responsive 
worship.  And. from  the  nature  of  the  evidence  by  which  it 
has  been  shown  that  these  questions  are  to  be  decided,  this  is 
as  much  as  we  have  a  right  to  expect. 

That  much,  if  not  all  of  the  public  worship  of  the  primi- 
tive Church,  was  by  way  of  response,  is  fully  proved  by  the 
earliest  writers.     Clement,  of  Rome,  about  A.  D.  83,  says  :t 

"  We  ought  to  take  heed,  that  looking  into  the  depths  of 
divine  knowledge,  we  do  all  things  in  order,'\.  whatsoever  our 
Lord  hath  commanded  us  to  do.  That  we  perform  our  of- 
ferings and  services  [i.  e.  the  offering  of  the  Holy  Commun- 
ion and  public  worship]  to  God,  at  their  appointed  seasons  ; 
for  these  he  hath  commanded  to  be  done,  not  rashly  and  dis- 
orderly, but  at  certain  determinate  times  and  hours." 

So  the  Roman  Governor,  Pliny,  A.  D.  110,  informs  us,  that 
the  Christians  "  met  on  a  certain  stated  day,  and  sung  hy  turns, 
(invicem,)  a  hymn   to   Christ,  as  God."§     TertuUian  often 

*  St.  Cyprian  passes  sentence  of  condemnation  upon  those  "  who  dare 
to  build  another  altar,  and  to  offer  another  prayer  with  unlicensed  words." 
Unit.  Ecc.  c.  14. 

t  Ep.  Cor.  c.  40.         t  Comp.  1  Cor.  iv.  40.         §  Plin.  Ep.  L.  x.  Ep.  97. 


104  ORDER  OF  WORSHIP  IN   THE   SECOND  CENTURY. 

mentions  forms  of  prayer,  and  expressly  attributes  them  to 
Christ.  That  the  public  worship  of  the  Synagogue  was  by 
a  form  of  prayer,  is  so  well  known,  that  it  is  needless  to 
spend  time  in  proof  of  it.  Hence  Tertullian  says  :  "  Our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  gave  his  disciples  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, a  new  form  of  prayer.''''*  He  also  speaks  of  "the  ap- 
pointed prayer,"  and  "  the  ordinary  prayer."!  And  Cyprian| 
says  :  "  Christ  did  himself  give  a  form  of  prayer,  and  himself 
advise  and  instruct  us,  what  we  ought  to  pray  for."  He  also 
mentions  the  "  Sursum  Corda,"  or.  Lift  up  your  hearts,  as  used 
in  the  Communion  Service  to  this  day.i^ 

Concerning  the  order  of  worship  in  the  Church,  in  the  sec- 
ond century,  but  very  little  has  been  preserved.  We  gather, 
however,  from  that,  especially  from  a  letter  of  Pliny,  A.  D. 
110,  and  the  Apology  of  Justin  Martyr,  A.  D.  150,  compared 
with  the  New  Testament  and  subsequent  writers,  that  it  was 
nearly  as  follows :  The  ancient  service  consisted  of  two 
parts — that  which  was  common  to  all,  and  is  now  called  the 
Ante- Communion  Service,  and  that  used  in  the  administiation 
of  the  Communion. 

Order  of  the  Ante- Communion  Service, 

1.  A  responsive  psalm  or  hymn,  addressed  to  Christ,  as 
GoD.JI  This  was  also  the  practice  in  the  time  of  Jerome,T[ 
though  in  some  places,  they  read  the  Old  Testament  first.** 

2.  Followed  reading  of  the  Scriptures,  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,!!  intermingled  probably,  as  we  know  it  was  a 
while  after,  with  the  reading  or  singing  of  psalms.JJ 

3.  Then  followed  the  sermon, ^^  which  was  generally  de- 
livered sitting.  II II 

*  De  Orat.  c.  1.       f  De  Oral.  c.  9.  %  On  Lord's  Prayer,  c.  1. 

$  Ibid.  20.  II  Plin.  B.  x.  Ep.  97.      IT  Ep.  22,  Ad  Eustach.  c.  15. 

**  Apos.  Cons.  ii.  .57,  v.  19.  ft  Jus.  Apol.  i.  c.  87. 

:f4:  Aug.  Serm.  10,  Horn.  33  ;  Counc.  Laod.  Can.  17. 

§§  Jus.  Apol.  i.  c.  87.  II 11  Bing-.  B.  xiv.  c.  4,  §  24. 


ORDER  OF  WORSHIP  IN   THE  SECOND   CENTURY.  105 

4.  Next  followed  prayers  by  the  minister,  and  to  each  pe- 
tition the  people  responded,  Amen*  A  while  later,  the  people 
also  responded,  Kyrie  elesion,  "  Lord  have  mercy  on  us,"  to 
the  shorter  petitions.! 

Order  of  the  Communion  Service. 

1.  The  kiss  of  peace4 

2.  [A.  D.  330.  The  Sursum  Corda  followed,  though  not 
mentioned  in  Justin's  brief  account.  Minister. — "  Lift  up 
your  hearts."  People. — "  We  lift  them  up  unto  the  Lord,"<^ 
This  is  mentioned  by  Cyprian, j|  Chrysostom,TI  and  Augus- 
tine.]** 

3.  [The  hymn  Tersanclus,  or,  as  it  is  sometimes  called,  the 
Trisagion,  "  Holy,  holy,  holy.  Lord  God  of  Sabaoth,  heaven 
and  earth  are  full  of  thy  glory,"  though  not  expressly  men- 
tioned by  Justin,  was  used  in  Cyril's  time,  330.]|'|' 

4.  The  commemoration  of  our  Lord's  words,  thereby  con- 
secrating the  elements. |:{: 

5.  The  oblation,  or  offering.§§ 

6.  Prayers,  [including  the  Lord's  prayer,]  the  people  re- 
sponding, Awew.jlll 

7.  Breaking  of  bread,  and  distribution  of  the  elements,  by 
the  Deacons. T[^ 

8.  The  Communion.*** 

9.  Collection  of  the  alms  of  the  Church.ftt 

These  are  the  more  important  parts  of  the  early  public  wor- 
ship, but  there  were,  no  doubt,  some  particulars  that  have  not 
come  down  to  us.  But  every  thing,  in  antiquity,  goes  to  prove 
the  use  of  Liturgical  worship. 

*  Jus.  Apol.  i.  87.  t  Apos.  Cons.  viii.  5,  6.      |Jus.  Apol.  i.  85. 

$  Cyril,  Cat.  xxiii.  c.  4.       ||  Oral.  Dom.  c.  20.  IT  Horn.  De  Euchar. 

**  Horn.  83,  De  Divers.  ft  Opera  a  Milles,  p.  296,  297. 

:H:  Jus.  Apol.  i.  85,  86,  87.  §§Ib.  85,  86,  87. 

II II  Pal.  Orig.  Lit.  I.  pp.  15—45.  ITIT  Jus.  Apol.  i.  cc.  85,  86,  87. 

***  lb.  ttt  lb. 

10 


106  LITURGY  OF  St.  JAMES. 

There  are,  also,  presumptions  of  the  strongest  kind,  arising 
frotii  other  sources,  that  all  the  public  worship  of  the  primitive 
Church  was  by  means  of  a  precomposed  Liturgy.  Thus,  if  we 
examine  the  most  important  parts  of  the  present  Liturgies — ■ 
the  Canon  for  the  administration  of  the  Communion — and  trace 
them  back  to  their  sources,  we  shall  find  there  are  four  an- 
cient Liturgies,  bearing  the  names  of  St.  Peter,  St.  James, 
St.  John,  and  St.  Mark  ;  to  one  of  which  every  Liturgy  in 
all  the  Churches  in  the  world  can  be  traced ;  and  there  does 
not  now  exist,  and  never  has  existed,  more  than  four  inde- 
pendent forms  of  Liturgies  ;  and  that  these  four  resemble 
each  other  too  much,  to  have  grown  up  independently,  and  too 
little,  to  have  been  copied  from  each  other.  We  shall  con- 
sider each  of  these  as  briefly  as  can  be  consistently  done. 

Liturgy  of  Jerusalem,  or  St.  James,  called  also  thi! 
Liturgy  of  Antiogh. — The  Patriarchate  of  Antioch  origi- 
nally included  that  of  Jerusalem,  and  comprised  the  countries 
of  Judea,  Mesopotamia,  Syria,  and  some  of  the  provinces  of 
Asia  Minor.  The  Liturgy  which  prevailed  in  these  countries 
is  deserving  of  particular  attention,  for  several  reasons  :  (1,) 
because  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  was  the  Mother-Church  of 
Christendom,*  and  the  faithful  first  received  the  title  of  Christ- 
ians at  Antioch,  (Acts  xi.  26  ;)  (2,)  because  the  Liturgy  there 
used  prevailed  over  a  large  exten  t  of  country  ;  and  (3,)  be- 
cause we  have  more  ancient  and  numerous  notices  of  this 
Liturgy  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  than  of  any  other. 

This  Patriarchate  has  for  a  long  time  been  chiefly  inhabited 
by  two  denominations  of  Christians,  the  Melchites  or  Ortho- 
dox, who  hold  the  Catholic  faith  concerning  the  divine  and 
human  nature  of  Christ  ;  and  the  Monophysites  or  Jacobites, 
who  hold  that  the  human  nature  of  Christ  is  entirely  absorb- 
ed in  the  divine,  and  made  one  with  it.     This  error  was  con- 

*  Ges.  Ecc.  Hist.  c.  2,  §  29. 


LITURGY  OF  ANTIOCH.  107 

demned  by  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  A.  D.  451,  and  a  sepa- 
ration between  the  parties  took  place  at  that  time,  and  they 
have  held  no  communion  with  each  other  since.  The  ortho- 
dox of  this  Patriarchate  have  long  agreed  in  using  a  Liturgy 
which  they  call  the  Liturgy  of  St.  James,  because  they  be- 
lieve him  to  have  he  en  the  original  composer  of  it.*  The 
Syrian  Monophysites  also  use  a  Liturgy  which  they  call  that 
of  St.  James,  and  which  they  say  was  composed  by  him.f 
But  though  these  Liturgies  now  teach  the  doctrines  held  by 
the  respective  parties  ;  yet,  they  agree  in  the  order  of  the  parts, 
in  the  rites  by  which  they  are  accompanied,  and  the  general  na- 
ture of  the  ideas  in  those  parts  where  there  is  no  difference  of 
doctrine  :  so  that  whoever  compares  the  two  will  be  surpri- 
sed at  their  minute  agreement  in  sentiments  and  expressions, 
when  he  recollects  that  near  fourteen  centuries  have  elapsed 
since  the  separation  took  place 4  The  Liturgy  of  St.  James, 
therefore,  is  older  than  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  451,  and 
was  at  that  time  held  in  such  estimation,  and  so  universally 
believed  to  have  come  down  from  Apostolic  days,  that  on 
a  separation  in  the  Church,  both  parties  retained  both  the  title 
and  substance  of  the  same  Liturgy.  This  Liturgy  still  contin- 
ues to  be  used  by  the  Monophysites,  but  has  been  supplanted, 
among  the  orthodox,  by  that  of  Constantinople,  except  on  the 
festival  of  St.  James,  when  the  Liturgy  bearing  his  name  is 
used. 

The  allusions  to  this  Liturgy  are  frequent  among  the  Fath^ 
ers  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries.  It  is  particularly  descri- 
bed, or  evidently  alluded  to,  by  Theodoret,  Bishop  of  Cyrus,^ 
by  Jerome, II  by  Chrysostom,  afterwards  Bishop  and  Patri- 
arch of  Constantinople,^  Ephrem  of  Syria,**  and  Cyril,  Bish- 


*  Palm.  Orig.  Lit.  I.  §  1.         flbid. 

§  Orig.  Lit.  I.  p.  §  1.  tEp.  CEcon.  ||  Adv.  Pelag. 

IT  Horn,  vii.,  ix.,  xviii.,  xxviii.,  Ixxii.     Ep.  Ad.  Cor,      **De  Saperdotj 


108  LITURGY  OF  C^SAREA. 

op  of  Jerusalem.  In  a  work  of  the  last,  written  between 
330  and  340,  he  describes  the  solemn  Liturgy  which  was  cel- 
ebrated after  the  dismissal  of  the  Catechumens  and  unbe- 
lievers, with  a  minuteness  which  clearly  proves  its  identity 
with  the  Liturgy  of  St.  James*  The  above  writers  lived  in 
different  parts  of  the  Patriarchate  of  Antioch,  and  all  agree  in 
describing  a  Liturgy  essentially  the  same.  This  Liturgy  was 
called  the  Liturgy  of  St.  James,  before  the  Council  of  Chal- 
cedon,  451,  and  was  the  same  then,  as  120  years  before,  or 
A.  D.  330.  If  from  this  time  we  ascend  to  A.  D.  150,  and 
compare  the  account  given  by  Justin  Martyr,  of  the  order 
of  worship  in  the  Syrian  Churches  in  his  day,  with  the  Lit- 
urgy of  St.  James,  we  shall  find  that  as  far  as  he  goes,  he 
agrees  most  closely  and  accurately  with  the  order  of  the  Lit- 
urgy which  we  know  was  used  in  the  same  place  150  years 
after. t  There  is,  therefore,  every  reason  to  believe,  that 
the  Liturgy  of  St.  James  has  come  down  from  the  most  prim- 
itive times  ;  not,  indeed,  precisely  as  we  now  have  it,  since 
the  origin  of  many  things  contained  in  it  can  be  shown ;  but 
much  of  the  substance  of  it,  in  precisely  the  same  order  in 
which  it  now  occurs,  is  certainly  as  old  as  the  second,  and 
probably  as  old  as  the  first  century. 

Liturgy  of  C^sarea,  or  St.  Basil. — The  Exarchate,  or 
Patriarchate  of  C2esarea,  extended  from  the  Hellespont  to  the 
Euphrates,  and  with  the  exception  of  Proconsular  Asia,  Phry- 
gia,  and  a  few  maritime  provinces,  included  the  whole  of 
Asia  Minor.  Caesarea,  in  Capadocia,  was  the  metropolis  of 
this  country,  and  corresponded  to  the  civil  diocese  of  Pontus. 
Basil,  surnamed  "  the  Great,"  was  consecrated  Bishop  of  this 
city,  A.  D.  370.  The  unanimous  voice  of  antiquity  ascribes 
to  him  the  composition  or  enlargement  of  a  Liturgy;  and  one 
bearing  his  name,  has  long  been  used  in  Asia  Minor.     The 

♦  Cyr.  Op.  296—300.     f  Apol.  i.  p.  96,  7.     Ed.  Thir.  Dial.  Tryp.  p.  386. 


LITURGY  OF  ST.  BASIL.  109 

existence  of  a  Liturgy,  bearing  the  name  of  Basil,  is  testified  to 
by  Charles  the  Bold,  in  the  ninth  century  ;*  by  the  Council  of 
Constantinople,  691  ;t  by  Leontius,  of  Byzantium,  590  ;;{:  by 
Peter,  the  Deacon,  520,^  and  by  Gregory  Nazianzen,  the  co- 
temporary  and  intimate  friend  of  St.  Basil  ;||  and  after  a  lapse 
of  near  1500  years,  this  same  Liturgy,  without  any  substantial 
variation,  is  used  from  the  northern  shore  of  Russia,  to  the 
extremities  of  Abyssinia,  and  from  the  Adriatic  and  Baltic 
seas,  to  the  furtherest  shore  of  Asia.^f  In  many  respects,  this 
is  the  most  valuable  Liturgy  extant,  as  we  can  trace  back  most 
of  the  words  and  expressions  contained  in  it,  to  about  the  year 
370. 

It  becomes,  therefore,  an  interesting  inquiry — to  what  ex- 
tent was  Basil  the  composer  of  this  Liturgy  ?  That  it  was 
more  than  merely  reducing  to  writing  a  Liturgy  previously  in 
use,  is  evident ;  but  that  it  extended  to  the  composition  of  an 
entirely  new  thing,  is  improbable  ;  and  if  not  improbable,  is 
contradicted  by  the  writers  of  that  age.  Indeed,  he  informs 
us  himself,  that  "  the  customs"  which  he  had  appointed,  were 
"  consonant  and  agreeable  to  all  the  Churches  of  God."** 
Now  if  we  compare  the  Liturgy  of  St.  Basil  with  that  of  St. 
James,  in  the  fourth  century,  we  shall  find  the  order  and  sub- 
stance of  both  exactly  the  same.ft  Hence,  the  most  reason- 
able conclusion  is,  that  the  part  performed  by  Basil,  consisted 
only  in  enriching  the  ancient  formularies  of  Caesarea,  by  the 
addition  of  new  fervor  and  sublimity  to  their  devotion,  and 
greater  beauty  and  correctness  to  their  diction.  Hence,  also 
it  is  reasonable  to  infer,  that  previous  to  the  time  of  St.  Basil, 
the  Liturgy  of  C(Esarea  was  essentially  the  same  as  that  of 

*Irap.  Ep.  Ad.  Cler.  v.        t  Can.  32.        ^  Adv.  Nestor.  L.  iii.  C.  18. 
$  De.  Incor.  c.  8.  ||  Oral.  20. 

nr  Orig.  Lit.  I.  §  2.     Bin^.  Ant.  Ecc.  I.  c.  17,  §.  2,  9,  10. 
**  Ep.  207.  tt  Orig.  Lit.  L  71. 

10* 


no  LITURGY  OF   CONSTANTINOPLE. 

St.  James.  Upon  no  other  supposition  can  we  account  for 
their  great  similarity.  Antioch  and  Ceesarea  were  independ- 
ent Patriarchates,  covering  extensive  tracts  of  country ;  and 
as  the  Bishops  in  both,  not  only  possessed  the  authority  to 
compose  new  Liturgies,  but  also  to  change  and  modify  old 
ones,  the  Liturgies  of  the  two  countries  would  be  unlikely  to 
agree,  unless  they  had  been  the  same  at  the  beginning.  And 
if  they  had  been  the  same  at  the  beginning,  the  Liturgy  of 
St.  Basil,  both  in  substance  and  order,  has  certainly  existed 
from  the  second,  and  probably  from  the  first  century.  This 
Liturgy,  or  one  bearing  the  same  name,  still  exists,  and  is  used 
in  three  languages,  the  Greek,  Coptic,  and  Syriac.  The  old- 
est manuscript  of  this  Liturgy  is  supposed  to  be  above  1180 
years  old,  or  to  have  been  written  before  A.  D.  660.* 

Liturgy  of  Constantinople,  or,  Chrysostom. — The 
Church  of  Byzantium,  afterwards  Constantinople,  originally 
subject  to  the  Metropolitan  of  Heraclea,  in  the  civil  Diocese 
of  Thrace,  was  elevated  to  dignity  and  power  by  the  Empe- 
ror Constantine,  about  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century ;  and 
the  second  General  Council  held  at  Constantinople,  A.  D.  381, 
raised  the  Bishop  of  that  Church  to  the  dignity  and  prece- 
dence of  the  Second  Metropolitan  See.  Subsequently,  his 
jurisdiction  was  extended  over  the  whole  of  Thrace,  Ephesus, 
and  Ca^sarea,  and  these  were  formally  placed  under  him  by 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  45 L  The  whole  of  Greece,  also, 
became  subject  to  him,  and  remained  under  him,  until  the  re- 
cent revolution  in  that  country. 

In  the  Churches  of  his  Patriarchate,  a  Liturgy  has  long 
been  used,  bearing  the  name  of  Chrysostom.  At  what  period 
it  was  introduced,  we  are  not  able  to  say,  as  there  is  very  lit- 
tle mention  of  it,  before  the  tenth  century.  It  was  translated 
into  Latin  about  1180.     In  all  the  main  features,  the  Liturgy 

jOrig.  Lit.  I.  $  2. 


LITURGY  OF  ST.   CHRYSOSTOM.  Ill 

of  St.  Chrysostom  agrees  with  that  of  St.  Basil,  the  former 
expanding  and  carrying  out  the  ideas  contained  in  the  latter. 
The  Liturgy  of  St.  Chrysostom,  therefore,  is  nothing  more 
than  an  expansion  of  that  of  St.  Basil,  and  in  all  its  important 
features — in  its  substance  and  order — must  be  equally  ancient 
with  that  and  the  Liturgy  of  St.  James.* 

These  Liturgies,  taken  together,  may  justly  be  called  the 
Great  Oriental  Liturgy  j  one  recension  of  which,  in  the 
fourth  century,  prevailed  from  Arabia  to  Capadocia,  and  from 
the  Mediterranean  to  the  Euphrates,  and  which  may  be  traced 
back  nearly  or  quite  to  the  Apostolic  age.  Another,  at  the 
same  time  prevailing  throughout  nearly  all  Asia  Minor,  having 
existed  there  from  time  immemorial ;  and  the  third,  at  the 
same  time,  with  the  same  antiquity,  prevailing  in  Greece  and 
Macedonia,  When,  therefore,  we  reflect  on  the  vast  extent 
of  these  countries,  the  independence  of  the  Churches  which 
existed  there,  the  power  possessed  and  exercised  by  each 
Bishop,  of  improving  the  Liturgy  of  his  own  Church ;  the 
circumstantial  varieties,  but  substantial  agreement  of  all ;  it 
seems  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  account  for  this  identity 
and  uniformity  in  any  other  manner,  than  by  supposing  that 
the  Apostles  themselves  originated  the  Oriental  Liturgy,  and 
communicated  it  to  all  those  Churches  at  their  very  founda- 
tion. The  uniformity  of  these  Liturgies,  as  extant  in  the 
fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  bespeak  a  common  origin  ;  while 
their  diversity  is  such  as  to  prove  the  remoteness  of  the  period 
at  which  they  were  originated.  To  what  remote  period,  then, 
can  we  refer,  as  exhibiting  a  general  uniformity  of  Liturgy, 
except  to  the  Apostolic  age  ?  And  why  not  to  that  age,  since 
we  have  proved  the  existence  of  such  a  Liturgy  in  the  time 
of  Justin  Martyr,  who  was  removed  but  a  single  link  from  the 
Apostles  ? 

*  Orig.  Lit.  I.  §  3. 


112  LITURGl    OF  ALEXANDRIA. 

Liturgy  of  Alexandria,  or,  St.  Mark. — The  patriarchate 
of  Alexandria,  where  Christianity  was  first  planted  by  St. 
Mark,*  has  been  in  possession  of  the  Monophy sites,  or  Jacob- 
ites, for  eleven  hundred  years.  The  Jacobites  took  their  rise 
in  the  fifth  century,  and  soon  became  very  numerous  in  Egypt. 
But  owing  to  the  favor  of  the  Emperors,  the  orthodox  kept 
possession  of  the  See  until  the  invasion  of  the  Mohammedans, 
in  the  seventh  century.  From  that  period  to  the  present,  the 
Monophysites  have  had  possession  of  nearly  all  the  Churches 
in  Egypt,  and  the  Orthodox  have  been  but  a  small  minority 
of  the  community.  The  Egyptian  Monophysites  use  three 
Liturgies,  written  in  the  ancient  Coptic  language,  all  of  which 
prevailed  in  Egypt  at^  and  probably  before^  the  time  of  the 
Mohammedan  invasion.  They  are  called  the  Liturgies  of 
St.  Basil,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  and  Cyril,  Patriarch  of  Alex- 
andria. These  Liturgies  do  not  appear,  however,  to  have 
been  originally  written  in  Coptic,  but  to  have  been  translated 
from  the  Greek.  This  idea  is  supported  by  the  occurrence 
of  several  Greek  phrases  in  the  Coptic  Liturgies,  now  extant, 
and  by  the  existence  of  ancient  Greek  manuscripts  of  those 
Liturgies.  I 

It  is  not  certain  at  what  time  the  Coptic  language  began  to 
be  used  in  the  celebration  of  divine  worship,  but  it  must  have 
been  at  an  early  period.  It  also  appears  from  a  comparison 
of  the  Liturgies  of  St.  Basil  and  Gregory  Nazianzen,  that 
they  were  introduced,  as  they  profess  to  have  been,  from 
Cappadocia,  or  the  surrounding  Dioceses.  But  the  Liturgy 
of  Cyril  does  not  seem  to  have  come  from  any  foreign  Church. 
Some  of  the  Alexandrian  historians  call  it  "  the  Liturgy  of 
St.  Mark,  which  Cyril  perfected  ;"|  and  it  is  clear  that  the 
Liturgies  of  Cyril,  and  that  of  St.  Mark,  used  by  the  Ortho- 

*  Euseb.  Ecc.  His.  ii.  16.  t  Orig.  Lit.  I.  §  4. 

tRenaud.  Tom.  1,  p.  171. 


LITURGY  OF  ST.  MARK.  113 

dox,  as  they  now  exist,  had  a  common  origin,  or  one  was  bor- 
rowed from  the  other.  There  is  reason  to  believe,  that 
both  have  proceeded  from  the  ancient  Liturgy  of  the  Egyptian 
Church,  used  before  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  451.  For, 
upon  no  other  supposition  can  we  account  for  the  fact,  that 
these  two  Liturgies,  professing  to  have  come  from  the  same 
source — which  have  been  used  by  two  bodies  of  men,  who 
have  held  no  communion  with  each  other  since  that  time — 
should  agree  with  each  other  both  in  substance  and  order, 
and  yet  both  differ  from  the  Liturgies  of  all  other  Churches 
in  the  world,  except  the  Ethiopian.  The  difference  between 
the  Liturgy  of  St.  Mark  and  that  of  Cyril,  is  confined  almost 
entirely  to  the  introduction,  and  to  differences  of  doctrine. 
The  other  variations  are  to  be  attributed  to  the  influence  of 
the  Constantinopolitan  Church,  on  which,  for  a  long  time,  the 
Orthodox  Christians  of  Egypt  were  dependent.  The  Ethio- 
pian Liturgy  was  evidently  borrowed  from  Alexandria,  from 
whence  the  first  Missionaries  were  sent  to  the  former  country, 
about  A.  D.  330  ;  and  was  clearly  copied  from  that  of  St. 
Mark.*  Yet  it  has  so  many  things  unlike  the  others,  that  it 
must  have  been  compiled  at  a  very  early  period.  Indeed,  it 
is  hardly  possible,  that  there  should  have  been  much,  if  any, 
copying  of  Liturgies  after  the  schisms  which  occurred  in  the 
fifth  century. 

[t  is  not  certain  at  what  time  the  Liturgy  of  St.  JVIark  was 
composed.  Some  imagine  that  it  was  composed  by  St  Mark 
himself.  But  because  it  contains  some  things  of  a  later  date, 
and  others  which  the  Evangelist  could  not  have  written,  oth- 
ers have  supposed  it  all  a  forgery.  It  is  impossible,  however, 
to  prove,  either  that  St.  Mark  did,  or  did  not  compose  a  Lit- 
urgy. But  it  is  not  necessary  that  it  should  have  actually 
been  composed  by  him,  in  order  to  bear  his  name.     It  is 

*Soc.  Ecc.  His.  i.  19.     Soz.  Ecc.  His.  ii.  2-1.     Theod.Ecc.  His.  i.  23. 


114  LITURGY  OF  EPHESUS. 

enough  that  it  has  been  used  from  the  earliest  period,  in  that 
Church  which  St.  Mark  planted,  and  which  might,  therefore, 
be  emphatically  styled,  "  St.  Mark's  Church."  This  name  is 
not  known  to  be  older  than  the  fourth  century,  but  the  ^-m^- 
stance  and  order  of  the  Liturgy  must  be  much  more  ancient. 
If  it  were  not  so,  no  reason  could  be  given  why  the  Orthodox 
and  Monophy sites,  who  separated  in  451,  should  both  retain 
the  same  Liturgy  ;  or  why  a  Church  that  was  planted  by  Mis- 
sionaries from  that  Church,  120  years  before,  should  also  have 
the  same  Liturgy.  We  are,  therefore,  able  to  trace  the  loords 
of  the  Liturgy  of  St.  Mark,  to  about  451,  and  the  order  of  it, 
to  about  330,  accompanied  by  the  tradition,  that  it  had  come 
down  from  the  Apostles.  Hence,  the  probability  is,  that  the 
order  and  substance  of  this  Liturgy  has  come  down  from  the 
Apostles,  and  if  so,  it  was  originally  derived  from  the  institu- 
tions of  St.  Mark,  or  else  composed  by  St.  Mark  himself. 

Liturgy  of  the  Exarchate  of  Ephesus,  or,  St.  John. 
— The  Exarchate  of  Ephesus  included  the  provinces  of  the 
Hellespont,  Phrygia,  Asia,  Lycaonia,  Pamphylia,  and  the 
maritime  cities  included  within  that  limit.  The  Exarch  of 
Ephesus  was  independent  until  451,  when  by  decree  of  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon,  it  was  made  subject  to  the  Patriarch 
of  Constantinople.  For  a  long  time,  the  Liturgies  of  Basil 
and  Chrysostom  have  been  used  in  this  region  ;  but  there  is 
reason  to  believe  that  another  form  was  used  there  at  an  early 
period.  Some  time  in  the  fourth  century,  a  council  was  held 
at  Laodicea,  composed  of  the  Bishops  of  this  Exarchate. 
One  of  the  canons  enacted  by  this  Council,  gives  minute  di- 
rections for  the  use  of  the  Liturgy.*  Such  a  canon  would 
not  have  been  made  without  cause,  and  the  only  probable  sup- 
position is,  that  the  object  of  this  canon  was  to  change  the 
existing  practice  in  reference  to  this  subject.     This  canon 

*  (Joun.  Liiod.  can.  1*J. 


LITURGY   OF   ST.   JOHN.  115 

appoints  an  order,  the  same,  or  very  similar  to  that  which  has 
ever  since  been  used  in  those  Churches,  that  is,  in  conformity 
with  the  order  of  St.  Basil  and  St.  Chrysostom.  What  the 
precise  difference  between  the  old  Liturgy,  and  that  intro- 
duced by  the  Council  of  Laodicea,  was,  it  is  not  easy  to  say. 
This  much,  however,  may  be  inferred,  that  they  differed  only 
where  directions  were  given  to  aher  it.  But  though  we  have 
no  copy  of  the  Ephesian  Liturgy  before  that  Council,  we  have 
one  which  seems  clearly  to  have  been  derived  from  it. 

The  Gallican  Liturgy. — It  has  long  been  known,  that 
the  ancient  Liturgy  of  Gaul  differed  from  that  of  Rome, 
though  the  precise  nature  of  the  difference  was  unknown, 
until  some  ancient  monuments  of  that  Liturgy  were  discov- 
ered in  the  seventeenth  century.  The  composition  of  this 
Liturgy,  either  in  whole  or  in  part,  has  been  ascribed  to  three 
different  individuals.  Musaeus,  a  Presbyter  of  Marsailles, 
who  died  about  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century,  is  said  to  have 
composed  a  book  of  Sacraments,  for  Eustasius,  Bishop  of 
that  city.*  Sidonius,  Bishop  of  Auvergne,  who  died  about 
A.  D.  494,  also  composed  a  book  of  Sacraments.f  A  preface 
was  written  to  this  by  Gregory,  of  Tours,  in  the  sixth  century. 
Hilary,  Bishop  of  Poicters,  who  died  about  368,  composed  a 
book  of  Sacraments  and  Hymns.J  These  were  probably 
nothing  more  than  modifications  of  an  older  Liturgy.  They 
seem  to  have  constituted  the  Missal  of  the  Gallican  Church, 
or  the  Liturgies  adapted  to  the  various  feasts.  That  this  was 
different  from  that  used  by  the  Church  of  Rome,  is  evident 
from  the  questions  proposed  by  Augustine,  after  his  arrival  in 
Britain,  to  Gregory,  Bishop  of  Rome.  §  These  remained  in 
use  in  Gaul,  until  Pepin  introduced  the  Roman  mode  of  chant- 
ing, and  finally  Charlemagne  substituted  the  whole   body  of 

*Bona.  Rer.  Lit.  I.  12.  t^reg.  Turo.  His.  France,  i.  22. 

t  Hieron.  De  Scrip,  c.  100.  §  Bede.  Ecc.  Hist.  i.  27. 


116  GALLICAN  LITURGY. 

the  Roman  service.  The  introduction  of  this  Liturgy-  was 
opposed  by  the  Gallican  clergy,  as  they  were  unwilling  to 
give  up  the  use  of  a  Liturgy  which  they  believed  to  be  coeval 
with  the  introduction  of  Christianity  into  that  country. 

There  are  several  reasons  for  supposing  the  Gallican  Lit- 
urgy to  be  of  Eastern  origin.  Lyons  was  the  oldest  Church 
in  Gaul,  and  Irenaeus,  consecrated  Bishop  of  that  city,  A.  D. 
176,  was  an  Eastern  man,  and  several  of  the  Missionaries  to 
that  place  were  also  from  the  East.*  So,  also,  Pothinus,  the 
predecessor  of  Irenaeus,  came  from  the  East.f  Several  of 
these,  and  Irenaeus,  the  most  prominent  of  all,  were  the  disci- 
ples of  Polycarp,  who  was  himself  the  disciple  of  St.  John. 
A  community  of  interest  and  feeling  between  the  Churches  of 
Gaul  and  Asia,  is  proved  by  the  fact,  that  at  the  time  of  the 
great  persecution  in  175,  the  Churches  of  Lyons  and  Vienna 
wrote  an  account  of  their  sufferings  to  the  Churches  of  Asia 
and  Phrygia,  and  to  no  others.  It  was,  therefore,  from  Asia 
that  the  Gallican  Church  received  her  Ecclesiastical  rites 
and  customs,  which  early  historians  ascribe  to  St.  John. J 
And  it  is  reasonble  to  infer,  that,  as  the  Liturgy  of  St.  James 
contained  the  rites  and  customs  of  the  Churches  over  which 
St.  James  originally  exercised  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  ;  and 
that  of  St,  Mark,  the  customs  of  the  Churches  planted  by 
him  ;  so  the  Liturgy  of  Ephesus,  from  which  the  Gallican 
Liturgy  was  copied,  contained  the  rites  and  customs  adopted 

*  Iren.  Adv.  H'cfir.  iii.  3.      Ep.  Ad.  Flor. 

f  Greg.  Tuor.  i.  28,  29. 

:j:  One  strong-  evidence  of  this  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact,  that  the  technical 
language  of  the  Gallican  Church  came  from  Greece,  and  not  from  Rome. 
Thus,  the  word  Church  came  from  the  Greek  curiacon,  and  not  from  Ec- 
clesia,  which  was  adopted  into  the  Latin.  (Ante.  p.  9,  n.)  The  Gothic 
languages  did  not  adopt  either  Eucharist  from  the  Greek,  nor  Saaament 
from  the  Latin,  but  used  a  word  of  their  own  to  signify  the  same  thing. 
Thus,  Moeso-Gothic,  hunsle,  (signifying  both  sacrifice  and  Eucharist  ;)  A.  S. 
husk  ;  Icelandic,  husl,  hvAisL 


LITURGY  OF   ST.   PETER.  117 

by  the  Churches  over  which  St.  John  exercised  a  supervision. 
And  as  these  can  all  be  traced  up  to  a  very  early  period,  it  is 
reasonable  to  conclude,  that  they  had  their  origin  with  the 
Apostles  themselves. 

This  Liturgy  was  also  used  at  an  early  period,  in  Spain  and 
Britain,  of  which  we  shall  speak  more  at  large,  when  we 
come  to  consider  the  Liturgies  of  those  countries.  It  is  suffi- 
cient at  present  to  remark,  that  tradition,  from  the  earliest  pe- 
riod, has  always  ascribed  the  Galilean  Liturgy  to  St.  John. 
Thus  an  Irish  writer  of  the  seventh  century  says  :  that  "  John 
the  Evangelist  first  chanted  the  Gallican  course,  [i.  e.  Liturgy,] 
then  afterwards  the  blessed  Polycarp,  the  disciple  of  St. 
John  ;  then  afterwards,  thirdly,  Irenaeus,  who  was  Bishop  of 
Lyons,  in  Gaul,  chanted  the  same  course  in  Gaul."*  Now, 
though  the  testimony  of  this  author  is  not  conclusive  evidence 
of  the  truth  of  these  facts,  yet  it  is  conclusive,  as  to  what  was 
at  that  time  the  universal  belief  respecting  them.  This  Lit- 
urgy always  differed  both  from  the  Roman  and  Oriental,  but 
approximated  much  nearer  the  latter  than  the  former. 

Liturgy  of  Rome,  or,  St.  Peter. — It  has  been  much 
debated,  whether  the  Roman  Liturgy  can  justly  claim  any  con- 
siderable antiquity.  Some  suppose  it  to  have  been  composed 
by  Gregory  "  the  Great,"  about  590.  Others  think  it  impos- 
sible at  this  day,  to  ascertain  the  text,  even  as  it  stood  at  that 
time.  This  subject  has  been  confused,  by  confounding  the 
Missal,  formerly  called  Sacramentary,  with  the  Liturgy.  It 
is  perhaps  impossible  to  ascertain  the  true  text  of  the  Roman 
Missal,  as  it  existed  in  any  of  the  early  centuries  ;  but  this  is 
not  the  case  with  the  Liturgy.  All  the  manuscripts  of  this, 
give  the  same  number  of  prayers,  in  the  same  order,  through- 
out the  invariable  part  of  the  Liturgy,  or,  as  it  is  usually  termed, 
the  Canon.     The  only  difference  consists  in  the  introduction 

*  Spel.  Concil.  I.  176. 
11 


118  ROMAN  LITURGY. 

of  some  short  petitions,  or    the  name  of  some  person  to  be 
commemorated. 

It  has  been  said  that  this  was  composed  by  Gregory,*-  but 
this  can  hardly  be,  as  history  gives  us  a  minute  account  of  the 
alterations  and  improvements  made  by  him.  These  consisted 
in  collecting,  arranging,  abbreviating,  and  improving  the  col- 
lects and  prayers.  He  introduced  one  petition  into  the  Ca- 
non, fand  joined  the  Lord's  Prayer  to  the  Canon.  These 
facts  prove  that  Gregory  was  not  the  composer,  but  the  com- 
piler and  improver  of  the  Roman  Liturgy.^ 

Others  suppose  that  this  Liturgy  was  composed  by  Vigilius, 
who  lived  near  fifty  years  before  Gregory,  about  A.  D.  540.| 
The  reason  for  this,  is  the  fact,  that  Gregory  himself  speaks  of 
the  Canon  extant  in  his  time,  as  having  been  composed  by  a 
scholastic,  or  learned  man.  But  it  is  nowhere  said  that  Vi- 
gilius was  this  "  scholastic,"  and  besides,  Vigilius  says  of  the 
Liturgy  in  his  time,  "  that  they  had  received  it  from  Apostol- 
ical tradition."  Whoever,  therefore,  was  the  "  scholastic"  re- 
ferred to  by  Gregory,  it  is  probable  that  he  was  no  otherwise 
the  composer  of  this  Liturgy,  than  Gregory  was  the  composer 
of  the  Sacramentary  that  bears  his  name  ;  and  hence,  that  he 
only  collected,  arranged,  and  modified  existing  materials, 
which  were  supposed  to  have  come  down  from  the  Apostolic 
age. 

Still  earlier  than  this,  mention  is  made  of  a  Liturgy  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  and  history  informs  us,  that  about  492,  Ge- 
lasius  performed  a  work  somewhat  similar  to  that  of  Greg- 
ory. An  ancient  Sacramentary  has  also  been  discovered  in 
modern  times,  which  is  believed  by  learned  men,  to  represent 
the  Roman  Sacramentary,  as  it  was  in  the  time  of  Gelasius. 
There  is  also  a  manuscript  of  the  Roman  Liturgy  in  exist- 

*Brett.  Liturgr.  p.  331.  ^  On^.  Liturg.  I.  §  G. 

X  Ep.  Ad.  Profotur. 


t 


AFRICAN   LITURGY.  119 

ence,  supposed  to  have  been  written  before  the  time  of  Gela- 
sius,  or  as  early  as  483.  It  is  generally  known  by  the  appel- 
lation of  the  Leonian  Sacrarnentary,  from  an  opinion  that  it 
represents  the  offices  of  that  Church  in  the  time  of  Leo  "  the 
Great."  This  author,  who  lived  at  the  time  of  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon,  451,  is  said  to  have  added  certain  passages  to  the 
Liturgy,  whence  it  is  evident  that  the  remainder  was  in  exist- 
ence before  his  time.  Besides,  there  are  certain  passages  in 
his  writings,  which  seem  to  have  been  transcribed  almost  ver- 
batim, into  this  Sacrarnentary.  In  addition  to  this,  Innocent, 
Bishop  of  Rome,  about  410,  makes  mention  of  the  rites  of 
that  Church,  and  describes  them  as  having  descended  from 
St.  Peter  ;  and  here  the  direct  evidence  to  the  antiquity  of  the 
Romish  Ritual  ends.  There  is,  however,  reason  to  believe 
that  the  so-called  African  Liturgy,  which  was  used  at  Car- 
thage and  its  vicinity,  was  originally  the  same  as  the  Roman, 
and  that  it  was  probably  copied  from  it. 

African  Liturgy. — The  civil  Diocese  of  Africa  comprised 
the  Provinces  of  Proconsular  Africa,  Numidia,  Tripoli,  By- 
zancium,  and  the  two  Mauritanias.  At  what  time  Christianity 
was  first  preached  at  Carthage,  the  chief  city  of  this  portion 
of  country,  or  by  whom  preached,  is  uncertain.  It  does  not, 
however,  appear  improbable,  when  we  recollect  the  situation 
of  Carthage,  in  reference  to  Rome,  and  the  intercourse  be- 
tween the  two  countries  after  the  death  of  Hannibal,  B.  C, 
183,  that  the  earliest  missionaries  to  Carthage,  would  go  from 
Rome  ;  and  if  so,  they  would  of  course  carry  the  Roman  Lit- 
urgy with  them.  This  supposition  will  account  for  the  fact, 
that  the  African  Fathers,  when  professing  to  give  an  account 
of  their  own  rites,  seem  to  be  describing  the  Roman  customs. 
On  this  point  we  are  only  able  to  obtain  probabilities,  as  all 
those  Churches,  once  conspicuous  for  their  numbers,  their 
learning,  and  their  piety,  have  long  ceased  to  exist.  And 
with  them,  has  gone  every  copy  of  their  Liturgy  ;  so  that  now 


120  AFRICAN  LITURGY. 

we  have  only  the  allusions  made  to  it,  in  the  writings^of  those 
Fathers  who  lived  in  Africa,  to  inform  us  concerning  its  na- 
ture and  character.* 

We  have  mentioned  that  the  Roman  Liturgy  differed  in 
some  respects  from  all  the  Liturgies  of  the  East.  One  of 
these  points  of  difference  consisted  in  directing  "  the  kiss  of 
charity,"  as  it  was  called,  to  be  given  after  the  consecration  of 
the  elements  ;  whereas,  in  all  the  Eastern  Liturgies  it  was 
given  before.  In  this  respect,  the  African  corresponded  with 
the  Roman  Liturgy,  as  we  learn  from  Tertullianf  and  Augus- 
tine.:|:  We  learn  also  from  Augustine,  that  the  custom  of  sing- 
ing anthems  from  the  Book  of  Psalms,  before  the  Liturgy  be- 
gan, was  introduced  at  Carthage  in  his  own  time  ;  and  we 
know  that  the  same  practice  was  introduced  at  Rome  by 
Coelestine,  A.  D.  423.  71ien  commenced  the  reading  of  the 
Scriptures,  which  sometimes  began  with  a  Lesson  from  the 
Prophets,  followed  by  one  from  the  Epistles,  and  sometimes 
began  with  one  from  the  Epistles.  After  reading  the  first 
Lesson,  came  a  Psalm,  which  order  corresponded  with  the  Ro- 
man customs,  but  has  no  other  parallel  either  in  the  East  or 
West,  except  in  the  Liturgy  of  Milan,  which  is  supposed  by 
many  to  have  been  copied  from  that  of  Rome.  Indeed,  the 
whole  order  of  service  in  the  African  Church,  as  described 
by  TertuUian,  Cyprian,  Augustine,  and  Optatus,  is  in  every 
essential  point,  the  same  as  in  the  Roman.  These  striking 
coincidences  render  it  almost  certain,  that  these  two  Liturgies 
both  came  from  the  same  source,  or  that  one  was  copied  from 
the  other.  But  as  Christianity  was  planted  at  Rome  before 
at  Carthage,  it  is  not  probable  the  Liturgy  of  Rome  came 
from  Africa  ;  yet,  the  Liturgy  of  Africa,  in  the  second  and 
third  centuries,  corresponded  with  the  Roman  in  the  fifth. 

*  Orig.  Lit.  T.  §  8.         f  Adv.  Marc.  i.  c.  23.     Ad.  Scap.  c.  2. 
X  Retract,  ii.  c.  11.     Serni.  45,  49,  176. 


LITURGY  OF  SPAIN.  121 

Consequently,  both  must  be  as  old  as  the  second  century,  and 
hence  there  is  reason  to  believe,  that  the  order  and  substance 
of  those  Liturgies,  is  as  ancient  as  in  other  Churches,  and  if 
so,  it  must  have  come  down  from  the  Apostles. 

Liturgy  of  Spain. — We  remarked,  when  speaking  of  the 
Gallican  Liturgy,  that  its  use  was  abolished  in  France,  by 
Charlemagne.  The  old  Spanish  Liturgy,  however,  was  not 
abolished  until  three  centuries  after,  when  the  Spanish  mon- 
archs  obliged  the  Churches  in  their  dominions  to  relinquish 
their  own,  and  adopt  the  Roman  Liturgy.  It  was  abolished 
in  Arragon,  A.  D.  1060,  but  was  used  considerably  later  in 
Navarre,  Castile,  and  Leon.  From  that  time  to  the  sixteenth 
century,  this  Liturgy  ceased  to  be  used,  when  Cardinal 
Ximenes  endowed  a  College  and  Chapel  at  Toledo,  for  the  cel- 
ebration of  the  ancient  rite.  This  is  probably  the  only  place 
where  the  primitive  Liturgy  of  this  country  continues  to  be 
used. 

This  Liturgy  agrees  in  almost  every  particular  with  the 
Gallican.*  The  number  and  order  of  the  invariable  parts 
maintain  a  close  correspondence,  though  the  introductions  are 
various.  So  great  is  their  similarity,  that  when  Charles  the 
Bold,  in  the  ninth  century,  wrote  to  the  clergy  of  Ravenna,  he 
speaks  of  the  clergy  of  Toledo  as  using  the  Gallican  Liturgy, 
which  had  been  abolished  by  his  ancestor,  Charlemagne.*!" 
And  Isodore,  Bishop  of  Seville,  in  the  sixth  century,  has  de- 
scribed the  Spanish  Liturgy  so  minutely  as  to  leave  no  doubt 
that  it  was  the  Liturgy  used  in  that  country  some  centuries 
after.|  It  also  appears  from  a  letter  of  Vigilius,  of  Rome, 
to  Profuturus,  Bishop  of  Braga,  in  538,  that  the  Spanish  Bish- 
ops were  not  familiar  with  the  Roman  Liturgy  at  that  time.^ 
And  as  we  know  the  Spanish  Liturgy  differed  from  the  Ro- 

*Ori§.  Lit.  I.  §  10.  t  I'np- Ep. 

4:De  Ecc.  Offic  i.  c.  11—15.  §  Ad  Profuturus. 

11* 


122  LITURGY  OF  SPAIN 

man  in  the  sixth  century,  there  is  reason  to  believe  it  had  from 
the  beffinning, 

*  Before  this  time,  there  was  no  power  over  them  that  would 
be  likely  to  introduce  a  new  Liturgy.  Rome  had  not  the 
power,  and  if  she  had  possessed  it,  would  not  have  introduced 
one  different  from  her  own.  Nor  is  there  any  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  the  Goths,  who  were  Pagans  when  they  overrun 
Spain,  introduced  a  new  Liturgy,  as  some  contend ;  nor  any 
reason  to  believe,  had  the  Goths  done  this,  that  the  Spanish 
Churches  would  have  relinquished  their  own  Liturgy,  and 
adopted  one  introduced  by  their  barbarous  invaders.  Nor  is 
there  any  reason  to  believe,  that  the  Galilean  Liturgy  was  in- 
troduced into  Spain,  or  the  Spanish  into  Gaul,  at  any  period 
NEAR  the  sixth  century.  There  is  no  trace,  either  in  history 
or  tradition,  of  any  such  introduction.  It  is,  however,  ap- 
parent, that  this  Liturgy  was  derived  from  the  Galilean,  at  a 
very  early  period,  or  that  both  came  from  the  same  source.* 

The  probability  seems  to  be,  that  though  Christianity  was 
introduced  into  some  portion  of  Spain,  even  in  the  times  of 
the  Apostles,  that  it  did  not  make  much  progress  there,  until 
the  second  century.  The  first  mention  of  the  Spanish  clergy, 
is  by  Cyprian,  about  250,  a  hundred  years  after  Pothinus  was 
Bishop  of  Lyons,  in  Gaul.t  The  first  Spanish  Martyr,  of 
which  we  have  any  undoubted  account,  was  in  A.  D.  259.;{: 
In  the  absence  of  all  proof  on  the  subject,  it  seems  probable 
that  Spain,  or  a  large  portion  of  it,  was  converted  by  Galilean 
Missionaries,  and  that  they  took  along  with  them  the  Liturgy 
of  their  own  Church  ;  and  hence,  the  correspondence  of  the 
two.  That  the  Spanish  Liturgy  was  at  any  time  introduced 
into  Gaul,  is  improbable.      Christianity  was  in  a  flourishing 

*  Much  of  the  ecclesiastical  phraseology  of  Spain  and  Portugal,  corres- 
ponds with  the  old  Gallic,  and  came  either  from  that,  or  direct  from  the 
Greek,  and  not  through  the  Latin.     See  the  words  Churchy  Bishop,  (fee. 

fEp.  67.  tRuinart,  Acta  Martyr,  p.  219. 


OF  BRITAIN OF  IRELAND OF  MILAN.  123 

State  there,  before  it  was  in  Spain  ;  and  we  have  already  seen 
that  the  Gallican  Liturgy  came  from  Ephesus.  Hence,  then, 
either  the  Spanish  Liturgy  was  copied  from  the  Gallican, 
which  is  probable,  or,  it  was  brought  from  Ephesus  to  Spain 
of  which  there  is  no  proof. 

Liturgy  of  Britain  and  Ireland. — The  period  when 
Christianity  was  introduced  into  England,  has  been  the  sub- 
ject of  much  debate.  It  is  prohahle,  that  the  gospel  was 
preached  there  in  the  first  century ;  it  is  certain,  that  there 
were  Christians  there  in  the  second ;  and  the  Bishops  of 
Churches  there,  attended  the  Council  of  Aries,  315,  of  Nice, 
325,  and  of  Sardica,  subsequent  to  that  time.  At  the  time 
Augustine  came  to  England,  the  Liturgy  of  the  British 
Churches  was  different  from  that  of  Rome.  From  whence 
the  British  Churches  derived  their  Liturgy,  we  are  not  able 
certainly  to  say  ;  but  as  that  of  Gaul  prevailed  in  the  vicinity, 
and  as  there  was  no  other  in  that  region,  which  differed  es- 
sentially from  that  of  Rome,  it  is  reasonable  to  conclude,  that 
they  used  the  Gallican,  or  one  nearly  resembling  it.  It  also 
appears  from  an  ancient  catalogue  of  Irish  saints,  written,  as 
is  supposed,  in  the  seventh  century,  that  from  the  time  that 
Patrick  was  Archbishop  in  Ireland,  to  the  middle  of  the  sixth 
century,  the  Irish  had  but  one  Liturgy,  and  that  this  Liturgy 
was  different  from  that  used  in  Britain  ;  and  if,  as  some  sup- 
pose, the  Irish  Liturgy  corresponded  with  that  of  Rome,  it  fol- 
lows that  the  British  Liturgy  was  different  from  that  of  Rome. 

Liturgy  of  Milan. — The  Liturgy  of  the  Church  of  Milan, 
known  by  the  name  of  the  Amhrosian  Liturgy,  differs  in  sev- 
eral particulars  from  that  of  Rome,  but  is  nevertheless  believed 
by  many  to  have  been  copied  from  it.  Others,  however,  be- 
lieve it  to  have  been  different  from  the  beginning.  In  either 
case,  it  was  probably  copied  from  some  other  Liturgy,  and 
hence,  no  conclusive  argument  can  be  drawn  from  it  relative 
to  the  subject  of  primitive  Liturgies. 


124  AGREEMENT  OF  THE  LITURGIES. 

We  have  now  gone  over  with  a  brief  view  of  the  several 
Liturgies,  and  have  found  in  the  East,  a  great  Oriental  Lit- 
urgy, used  in  Antioch,  Caesarea,  and  Constantinople,  all  ca- 
pable of  being  traced  nearly,  or  quite  up  to  Apostolic  times, 
and  from,  the  earliest  ages  attributed  to  St.  James.  We 
have  found  in  Alexandria,  a  Liturgy  reaching  back  nearly  to 
the  same  period,  and /row  very  early  ages  hearing  the  name  of 
St.  Mark.  In  Britain,  Spain,  and  Gaul,  a  Liturgy  derived 
from  that  of  Ephesus,  the  substance  of  which  has  descended, 
as  is  believed, /rom  the  time  of  St.  John  ;  and  we  have  also 
found  one  in  Rome,  Milan,  and  the  Civil  Diocese  of  Africa, 
extending  back,  we  can  not  tell  how  far,  but  certainly  to  a  very 
early  period,  owing  its  origin,  as  many  believe,  to  St.  Peter. 

In  all  these  Liturgies,  there  are  these  several  parts  in  which 
they  resemble  each  other. 

I.  All  the  ancient  Liturgies  now  existing,  or  which  can  be 
proved  ever  to  have  existed,  now  resemble  one  another  in  the 
following  points  : — 

1 .  All  of  them  direct,  that  previous  to  communion,  those 
who  intend  to  communicate,  shall  exchange  "  the  kiss  of 
peace." 

2.  In  all  of  them,  the  more  particularly  solemn  part  of 
the  service  commences  with  the  words  exactly  answering  to 
the  English,  "  Lift  up  your  hearts,"  &c.,  as  far  as  "  Holy 
Father,  almighty,  everlasting  God." 

3.  All  contain  the  Hymn,  "  Therefore  with  Angels  and 
Archangels,"  &c.,  with  very  trifling  varieties  of  expression. 

4.  Also,  they  all  contain  a  Prayer,  answering  in  substance 
to  ours,  "  for  the  whole  state  of  Christ's  Church  militant." 

5.  And  likewise  another  Prayer,  (which  has  been  excluded 
from  the  English  Ritual,)  "  for  the  rest  and  peace  of  all  those 
who  have  departed  this  life  in  God's  faith  and  fear ;"  conclu- 
ding with  a  Prayer  for  communion  with  them. 

6.  Also,  a  commemoration  of  our  Lord's  words  and  actions 


ORDER  OF  THE  SEVERAL  PARTS.  126 

in  the  institution  of  the  Eucharist,  which  is  the  same,  ahnost 
word  for  word,  in  every  Liturgy,  but  is  not  taken  from  any  of 
the  four  Scriptural  accounts. 

7.  A  sacrificial  oblation  of  the  Eucharistic  bread  and  wine. 

8.  A  prayer  of  consecration,  that  God  will  "make  the  bread 
and  wine  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ." 

9.  Direction  to  the   Priest  for  breaking  the  consecrated 
bread. 

1 0.  The  Lord's  Prayer. 
IL  Communion. 

IL   These  parts  are  always  arranged  in  one  of  the  four  fol- 
lowing orders. 

St.  James'  Liturgy. 
Oriental. 
\.  The  kiss  of  peace. 

2.  Lift  np  your  hearts,  &c. 

3.  Therefore  with  Angels,  &c. 

4.  Commemoration  of  our  Lord's  words. 

5.  The  Oblation. 

6.  Consecrating  Prayer. 

7.  Prayer  for  the  Church  Militant. 

8.  Prayer  for  the  departed  saints. 

9.  The  Lord's  Prayer. 
10.  Breaking  of  bread. 
IL  Communion. 

St.  Mark's  Liturgy. 
Egyptian    and    Ethiopian. 
L  The  kiss  of  peace. 

2.  Lift  up  your  hearts,  &c. 

7.  Prayer  for  the  Church  Militant. 

8.  Prayer  for  the  departed  saints. 

3.  Therefore  with  Angels,  &c. 

4.  Commemoration  of  our  Lord's  words. 


126  AGREEMENT  OF  LITURGIES. 

5.  The  Oblation. 

6.  Consecrating  Prayer. 

10.  Breaking  of  bread. 
9.   Lord's  Prayer. 

11.  Communion. 

St.  JoThn's  Liturgy. 
Galilean,  Ephesian,  and  Mozarahic. 

7.  Prayer  for  the  Church  Militant. 

8.  Prayer  for  the  departed  saints. 

1.  Kiss  of  peace. 

2.  Lift  up  your  hearts,  &c. 

3.  Therefore  with  Angels,  &c. 

4.  Commemoration  of  our  Lord's  words. 

5.  The  Oblation. 

6.  Consecrating  Prayer. 

10.  Breaking  of  bread. 

9.  Lord's  Prayer. 

11.  Communion. 

St.  Peter's  Liturgy. 
Roman,  Milanese,  African. 

2.  Lift  up  your  hearts,  &c. 

3.  Therefore  with  Angels,  &c. 

7.  Prayer  for  the  Church  Militant. 
6.  Consecrating  Prayer. 

4.  Commemoration  of  our  Lord's  words. 

5.  The  Oblation. 

8.  Prayer  for  the  departed  saints. 

10.  Breaking  of  bread. 

9.  The  Lord's  Prayer. 
1.  The  Kiss  of  Peace. 

11.  Communion. 

The  American  Liturgy,   adopted  with   alterations  from  the 
English,  has  the  following : 


order  of  the  parts.  127 

American  Liturgy. 
7.  Prayer  for  the  Church  Militant. 

2.  Lift  up  your  hearts,  &c. 

3.  Therefore  with  Angels,  &c. 

4.  Commemoration  of  our  Lord's  words. 

10.  Breaking  of  bread. 

5.  The  Oblation. 

6.  Consecrating  Prayer. 

11.  Communion. 

9.  The  Lord's  Prayer. 

One  very  remarkable  circumstance,  in  respect  to  the  agree- 
ment of  these  several  ancient  Liturgies,  is,  that  although  the 
language  made  use  of,  in  consecrating  the  elements  in  the 
Eucharist,  in  commemoration  of  our  Lord's  words  and  ac- 
tions, is  almost  the  same,  word  for  word,  in  them  all,  it  does 
not  agree  in  the  precise  words,  with  any  of  the  Scripture  ac- 
counts of  it.  Indeed,  it  would  seem,  that  this  is  an  original 
and  independent  account  of  the  transaction,  incorporated  into 
these  Liturgies,  by  the  Apostles'  themselves,  and  that  it  has 
come  down  to  us  unchanged. 

A  similar  conclusion  must  be  drawn  from  the  substantial 
agreement  of  the  Baptismal  Liturgies.  Thus,  if  we  examine 
all  the  various  copies  of  all  the  Liturgies,  we  shall  find  them 
using  the  same  Scripture,  and  giving  it  the  same  interpreta- 
tion, describing  it  by  the  same  terms,  and  pleading  the  same 
authority  for  their  interpretations  and  practices.  A  few  of 
these  coincidences  will  be  mentioned. 

1.  The  text  John  iii.  5,  "  except  a  man  be  born  of  water 
and  the  spirit,  he  can  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God,"  is 
universally  applied  to  baptism.  It  is  read  as  a  lesson  in  the 
Armenian  Baptismal  service,  (x\ss.  Bib.  Lit.  ii.  196 — 206,)  the 
Malabar,  (i.    188,)    Greek   Liturgy  of  James,   of  Edessa,  (ii. 


128  BAPTISMAL  LITURGIES. 

274,)  Apostolic  Liturgy  revised  by  Severus,  (ii.  154,)  of  Gela- 
sius,  (i.  9,  10,)  Gregory,  (i.  35,)  the  Gallican,  (i.  40,)  Gellone, 
(i.  57,)  Poicters,  (i.  63—69,)  Naples,  (i.  75,)  Vienna,  (i.  77— 
80,)  Liege,  (i.  83.)  It  is  also  referred  to  in  the  prayers,  in 
the  old  Gothic  Baptismal  service,  (ii.  34,)  Old  Roman,  (ii.  4,  8, 
63,  68,  75,)  Old  Gallican,  (ii.  38,)  Chrysostom,  (ii.  138,)  Anti- 
och  and  Jerusalem,  (ii,  220,  231,)  Coptic  and  Ethiopic,  (ii. 
166,  7,)  Maronite,  (ii.  344,)  Armenian,  (ii.  198,)  and  in  that  of 
James  of  Edessa,  (i.  256.) 

2.  The  passage  in  Titus,  (iii.  5,)  "  the  washing  of  regener- 
ation is  universally  understood  of  baptism."  It  is  part  of  the 
lesson  in  the  Baptismal  service  of  the  Alexandria  Church, 
(Ass.  ii.  152,)  as  also  in  the  Coptic  and  Ethiopic,  (ii.  152,) 
and  in  the  Syriac  Liturgy,  (i.  228.)  It  is  recited  in  the  Gothic 
and  Gallican  service,  (ii.  34,  35,)  Alexandrian,  Coptic,  and 
Ethiopic,  (ii.  173,)  in  the  Greek,  (ii.  138,)  in  that  of  Jerusa- 
lem and  Antioch,  (ii.  220,  231,  259,  219,)  and  in  the  Arme- 
nian, (ii.  169—172.) 

3.  All  the  Liturgies  refer  to  the  Baptism  of  Christ,  as 
their  authority  for  praying,  that  the  water  might  be  sanctified, 
to  the  mystical  washing  away  of  sin."  Thus  it  is  in  the  Old 
Roman,  (Ass.  ii.  4,  8,  53,)  the  Gothic,  (ii.  34,  5,)  Greek,  (ii. 
132,)  Armenian,  (ii.  197,)  Coptic,  (ii.  166,  167,  180,)  Syriac, 
(i.  262,  ii.  268,)  Maronite,  (ii.  314,)  Malabar,  (i.  178,)  An- 
tioch, (i.  226,  ii.  268,)  James  of  Edessa,  (i.  241,)  Jerusalem, 
(ii.  244 — 7.)  Now  this  interpretation  is  not  based  on  any 
express  language  of  Scripture,  and  consequently  we  must 
conclude  that  it  has  come  down  from  the  earliest  times,  since 
there  has  been  no  time  subsequent  to  the  days  of  the  Apostles, 
that  such  an  interpretation  could  begin  and  become  universal ; 
much  more  find  its  way  into  every  ancient  Liturgy. 

4.  All  the  Liturgies  agree  in  calling  Baptism  a  seal.  Thus 
it  is  in  the  OW  Gallican,  (Ass.  ii.  40.)  Old  Gothic,  (ii.  37,) 
Coptic,  (i.  164,)  Greek,   (i.   337,)  Syriac,   (i.  220,)  Malabar, 


BAPTISMAL   LITURGIES.  129 

(i.  178,)  Apostolic  by  James  of  Edessa,  (i.  263,)  Antioch,  (ii. 
282,)  Maroiiite,  (ii.  316,)  Ambrosian,  (ii.  45,)  Maronite,  (ii. 
330—337.) 

5.  Very  many  of  them  quote  or  refer  to  the  language  of 
St.  Paul,  in  Galatians,  (iii.  27  ;)  "  as  many  of  you  as  have  been 
baptized  into  Christ  have  put  on  Christ  ;"  as  the  Arme- 
nian, (Ass.  ii.  196,)  Syriac,  (ii.  249,)  Greek,  (ii.  299,)  Old 
Roman,  (ii.  3,)  Old  Galilean,  (ii.  3,  38,)  and  appears  to  have 
been  referred  to  in  the  rest. 

6.  The  language  of  St.  Paul,  in  Colossians,  (ii.  10,  11,)  on 
which  we  have  commented,  is  also  recited  or  spoken  of  in 
the  Baptismal  Liturgies;  as  in  the  Malabar,  (Ass.  i.  196,)  Old 
Roman,  (i.  57,)  Greek,  (ii.  138,)  Antioch,  (ii.  222,)  Jerusalem 
(ii.  230,)  Coptic,  (ii.  151,)  Maronite,  (ii.  329,)  and  in  several 
others. 

Th'ere  are  many  other  points  of  agreement ;  but  these  are 
sufficient  to  show,  that  the  substance  of  all  the  Baptismal  Lit- 
urgies is  the  same.  Now  as  we  have  already  seen,  that  the 
Liturgies  of  the  Communion  Service  must  have  been  com- 
posed back  nearly  or  quite  in  Apostolic  times,  we  are  also  led 
to  conclude,  that  the  same  was  true  of  the  Baptismal  Liturgies 
also.  These  conclusions  give  a  peculiar  force  to  the  language 
of  Paul  to  Timothy :  "  Hold  fast  the  form  of  sound  words 
thou  hast  heard  of  me,"  (2  Tim.  i.  13.)  Upon  a  view,  there- 
fore, of  the  foregoing  summary  of  evidence,  it  does  not  seem  to 
admit  of  question,  that  the  worship  of  the  Church  has  been 
by  a  Liturgy  from  the  very  days  of  the  Apostles. 

But  there  is  still  further  evidence,  that  the  Apostles  used  a 
form  of  prayer.  Indeed,  we  have  one  of  the  Apostolic  pray- 
ers on  record.     (Acts  iv.  24 — 30.) 

An  Apostolic  Form  of  Prayer. — "  Lord,  thou  art  God, 
which  has  made  heaven,  and  earth,  and  the  sea,  and  all  that  in 
them  is  ;  who  by  the  mouth  of  thy  servant  David  has  said  : 
12 


IM  ArOSTOI.IO   FORM   OF    PKAYKK- 

AVhy  did  the  heathou  nige, 

And  the  people  itnagiue  vain  things  ? 

The  kinsis  of  the  earth  stood  up. 

And  the  riders  were  gathered  together 

Against  the  Loki^,  and  against  his  Christ. 

For  o(  a  truth  against  thy  Holy  Child  Jesi^s, 

Whom  thou  hast  anointed, 

For  to  do  \\  hatsoever  thy  hand 

And  thy  eounsel  deteruiiued  betore  to  be  done. 

Both  Herod  and  l\>ntius  Pilate,  with  the  Gentiles, 

And  the  people  of  Israel  w  ere  gtithered  together. 

And  now,  Lori\  behold  their  threatenings,  and  grant  unto 
thy  servants  that  with  all  boldness  they  may  speak  thy  word, 
by  stretching  forth  thine  hand  to  heal,  and  that  signs  and  won- 
ders may  be  done  by  the  name  of  thy  Holy  Child  Jfsus." 

The  occasion  upon  which  the  use  of  this  prayer  is  recorded, 
was  the  extraordinary  escape  of  Peter  and  John  from  the 
hands  of  the  Jews.  And  yet.  there  is  no  allusion  to  the  cir- 
cumstance. It  is  just  such  a  prayer  as  they  would  be 
likelv  to  use  on  every  occasion  of  meeting  together  ;  one  that 
would  be  applicable  to  their  case,  at  all  times.  Hence,  as  this 
general  praver  was  used  upon  an  e^^yeeial  occasion,  it  is  but 
reasonable  to  infer,  that  it  had  been  precomposed,  and  formed 
a  part  of  their  daily  worship. 

But  further,  this  prayer  is  said  to  have  been  otVered  trith  one 
accar<l,[omothufn'Mion.)  It  maybe  asked,  in  reference  to  this, 
whether  with  one  accord  denotes  an  external  union  of  voices, 
or  simplv  an  internal  consent  of  spirits,  or,  in  other  words, 
whether  the  prayer  above  recorded,  was  used  by  the  whole 
assembly,  or  by  one  only,  the  rest  joining-  mentally  ?  It'  by 
the  whole  assembli/,  then  it  must  have  been  a  precomposed 
form  of  prayer,  and  would  of  itself  prove  the  use  of  such 
forms  in  the  Apostolic  Church.  The  question  in  this  case  is, 
does  the  phrase  "  with  one  accord,"  denote   simply  union  of 


PRAYER  "  WITH  ONE  ACCORD."  131 

souls,  or  does  it  imply  such  an  union,  manifested  by  external 
unity  of  action  ?  The  scriptural  use  of  the  phrase  must  decide* 

This  language  occurs  in  various  places,  (Acts  i.  14  ;  ii.  1  ; 
iv.  24;  V.  12;  vii.  57;  viii.  6;  xii.  20;  xv.  25;  xvi.  12; 
xix.  29,)  in  all  of  which,  "  with  one  accord"  denotes  an  in- 
ternal unity  of  heart,  accompanied  by  an  external  unity  of  ac- 
tion, unless  the  case  of  the  prayer  in  Acts  (iv.  24)  be  an 
exception.  This,  however,  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  suppose, 
as  it  would  be  t^iving  to  the  lano^uaore  of  the  historian,  two 
senses,  when  it  is  not  required  ;  for,  if  when  it  is  said,  that 
the  people  "  ran  upon  the  Apostle  with  one  accord,"  and  "  with 
one  accord  rushed  into  the  theatre,"  an  internal  unity  of  soul, 
manifested  by  an  external  unity  of  action,  is  intended,  what 
reason  can  be  given,  why  the  same  is  not  intended,  when  it 
is  said,  the  brethren  "  lifted  up  their  voice  with  one  accord  ?" 

All  the  cases  referred  to  above,  are  from  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  and  we  recollect  but  one  other  instance  where  the 
same  language  occurs  in  the  New  Testament,  which  is  to  the 
same  effect.  (Rom.  xv.  6.)  "  That  ye  may  with  one  accord, 
with  one  mouth,  glorify  God." 

We  think  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt,  that  omothumadon 
denotes  unity  of  soul,  manifested  by  unity  of  action,  and 
hence,  that  the  prayer  referred  to,  was  offered  up  by  the 
whole  assembly,  and  that  it  was,  therefore,  a  precomposed 
form  of  prayer  throughout,  as  we  know  it  was  in  part,  a  por- 
tion of  it  being  cited  from  one  of  the  Psalms  of  David. 

St.  Paul  also  gives  general  directions  concerning  those  top- 
ics of  prayer,  which  must  always  remain  the  same.  And 
TertuUian,  in  giving  an  account  of  the  practice  of  the  Church 
in  his  own  time,  seems  almost  to  be  copying  the  language  of 
the  Apostle.*  These  facts,  which  comprise,  we  believe,  all 
the  evidence  there  is  on  the  subject,  down  to  the  end  of  the 


*  Apol.  c.  39. 


lis 


ADVAXTAGES  OF  A  LITURGY. 


second  century,  folly  authorize  the  conclusion,  that  all  the 
prayers  used  in  the  public  worship  of  the  Apostolic  and  Primi' 
five  Church,  were  precomposed  forms. 

A  few  remarks,  suggested  by  the  foregoing,  will  close  this 
head  of  our  inquirv-.  We  observe,  Jirst,  that  public  worship 
can  not  be  conducted  "  decently  and  in  order,"  without  a  form. 
In  private  devotion,  the  individual  prays  for  himself,  and  uses 
such  language  as  in  his  judgment  is  best  adapted  to  his  wants 
and  feelings.  In  social  and  pnblic  worship,  one  only  can 
address  the  Deit^-  audibly,  at  the  same  time,  x411  the  others 
must  join  with  him,  and  utter  mentally,  what  the  speaker  utters 
audibly.  If  the  hearer  does  not  do  this,  he  does  not  pray. 
He  merely  hears  another  pray.  The  words  of  the  speaker 
are,  therefore,  always,  and  necessarilv,  a  form  to  the  hearer. 
In  as  far  as  this  point  is  concerned,  it  is  of  no  consequence 
whether  the  speaker  himself  uses  a  form,  or  prays  from  the 
impulse  of  the  moment.  In  either  case,  his  extempore  praver, 
to  his  hearers,  is  a  form  of  prayer. 

Secondly,  the  supposed  extempore  prayer  of  the  speaker,  is, 
in  all  ordinar\^  cases,  a  precomposed  form  of  prayer.  From 
the  very  nature  of  the  case,  it  is  impossible  that  it  should  be 
otherwise.  The  daily  wants  of  man  are  so  nearly  alike,  his 
transgressions  so  frequent,  and  his  need  of  the  same  di\'ine 
aid  so  constant,  that  the  same  confessions  must  be  daily  made, 
the  same  petitions  must  be  daily  sent  up  to  heaven.  To  re- 
quire a  minister  to  change  or  vary  the  language  of  these  peti- 
tions on  ever\'  Sunday,  or  on  every  occasion  of  public  prayer, 
would  be  to  demand  an  impossibility,  to  require  an  absurdity. 
From  the  necessity  of  the  case,  therefore,  the  petitions  used 
in  public  worship,  must  be  in  the  nature  of  forms,  whether 
composing  a  Liturgy  or  not. 

But  further,  no  man,  with  a  just  sense  of  the  nature  of  the 
duiies  he  is  to  perform,  or  the  Being  he  is  about  to  address, 
would  think  of  presenting  himself  before  a  congregation  of 


ADVANTAGES  OF  A  LITURGY.  133 

worshipers,  and  pour  out  his  petitions  without  premeditation 
or  reflection.  If,  then,  a  prayer  has  been  made  the  subject  of 
meditation  and  preparation,  it  is  not  only  a  form  to  those  who 
listen,  but  it  is  also  a  form  to  him  who  speaks  it.  Hence,  if  a 
prayer  has  been  premeditated,  and  prepared,  it  is  as  essen- 
tially a  precomposed  prayer,  a  form  of  prayer,  as  if  it  had 
been  written  or  printed.  Since,  then,  forms  of  prayer,  in  fact, 
if  not  in  form,  are  indispensable  to  the  existence  of  public 
worship,  the  only  real  question,  therefore,  is,  whether  it  is 
better  for  the  gxeat  and  good  men  of  the  Church  to  unite  in 
making  a  form  for  the  irhole  Church,  or  whether  each  indi>"id- 
ual  minister  shall  be  left  to  make  a  form  for  At^  congregation? 
To  this  question,  it  would  seem  there  could  be  but  one  an* 
swer  :  and  that,  in  favor  of  one  form  for  the  tchoU  Church. 

And  first,  the  use  of  one  form  by  the  whole  Church,  likens 
us  to  the  Apostolic  times,  when  all,  with  one  voice,  and  one 
consent,  prayed  and  sang  praises  to  the  God  of  Heaven,  and 
to  his  Son,  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ.  It  would  also  teach 
the  world  by  a  constant  and  ever-present  example,  that  Chris- 
tianity is  one  religion,  and  that  all  its  professors  have  one  and 
the  same  end  and  object  in  view. 

Second,  the  use  of  such  a  form  would  prevent  the  frequent 
improprieties  into  which  the  ignorant  and  weak  so  often  fall, 
and  the  extravaofances  into  which  foolish  and  fanatical  men  so 
often  run.  No  person  of  common  religious  sensibility  can 
have  grown  up  to  the  estate  of  manhood,  without  more  than 
once  having  had  his  feelings  hurt  by  the  mistakes  and  blun- 
ders of  incompetent,  or  shocked  by  the  follies  and  extrava- 
gances of  inconsiderate  and  fanatical  men.  Such  mistakes 
will  ever  occur,  when  the  minister  touches  on  a  new  topic,  in 
a  new  style,  without  any  previous  preparation.  The  strength 
of  a  man's  devotion  can  not  be  measured  by  his  ability  to  utter 
a  prayer  fluently  or  properly,  since  his  knowledge  of  lan- 
guage, or  his  ability  to  express  himself  correctly,  is  no  more 
'12* 


134  ALMS  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

in  the  ratio  of  his  piety,  than  of  his  ability  to  read  with  pro- 
priety. It  will  be  said,  that  men  of  this  class  should  not  be 
admitted  into  the  sacred  office  of  the  ministry.  But  as  expe- 
rience has  shown,  that  no  regulations  which  we  can  adopt, 
are  sufficient  to  keep  them  out,  so  it  is  the  part  of  wisdom  to 
prevent  the  repetition  of  these  evils,  by  putting  it  out  of  the 
power  of  these  men  to  repeat  them.  And,  lastly,  the  use  of 
forms  of  prayer,  requiring  every  person  to  join  in  the  service, 
is  better  adapted  to  make  men  feel  that  religion  is  a  personal 
concern,  than  any  other  mode  of  worship  which  can  be 
adopted. 

3.  All  the  members  were  to  contribute  of  their  goods,  to 
supply  the  wants  and  necessities  of  the  poor  of  the  Church. 
To  the  Corinthians,  Paul  says :  "  Concerning  the  collection 
for  the  saints,  as  I  have  given  order  in  the  Churches  of  Gala- 
tia,  so  do  ye."  (1  Cor.  xvi.  1.)  There  are  numerous  ac- 
counts of  contributions  for  the  saints,  at  Achaia  and  Macedo- 
nia, (Rom.  XV.  26  ;  2  Cor.  viii.  1 — 5  ;  ix.  1  ;)  at  Rome,  (Rom. 
xii.  13  ;)  at  Corinth,  (1  Cor.  xvi.  1,  2  ;)  and  in  many  other 
places. 

The  same  custom  also  prevailed  in  the  next  age.  Diony- 
sius.  Bishop  of  Corinth,  writing  to  Soter,  Bishop  of  Rome, 
A.  D.  160,  says  :  "  For  the  practice  has  prevailed  with  you 
from  the  beginning,  to  do  good  to  all  the  brethren  in  every 
way,  and  to  send  contributions  ^  to  many  Churches  in  every 
city."*  And  this  practice  Eusebius  assures  us  had  continued 
to  his  day.f 

4.  It  was  their  duty  to  support  those  who  preached  the  gos- 
pel to  them.  "  The  Lord  hath  ordained,  that  those  who 
preach  the  gospel,  should  live  of  the  gospel."  (1  Cor.  ix.  14.) 
The  money  for  the  support  of  the  clergy  was  at  first  raised  by 
voluntary  oblations,  made  every  Sunday,  and  a  special  obla- 

*  Euseb.  iv.  23.  f  Ecc.  Hist.  iv.  23. 


WEEKLY  AND  MONTHLY  COLLECTIONS.  135 

tion  made  once  a  month.*  This  practice  is  mentioned  in  the 
second  centmy  by  the  Apostolical  Canons,!  and  by  Tertul- 
lian  ;|  in  the  third  century  by  Cyprian,^  and  by  many  other 
subsequent  writers. 

5.  It  was  their  duty  to  send  assistance  or  support  to  those 
who  preached  the  gospel  in  regions  where  there  was  no 
Church.  When  Paul  first  preached  the  gospel  of  Christ  at 
Corinth,  those  of  his  necessities  which  his  own  hands  could 
not  supply,  were  ministered  to  by  the  Church  of  Macedonia, 
so  that  he  was  not  chargeable  to  the  Corinthians.  (Acts  xviii. 
1,  3  ;  2  Cor,  xi.  9,  12,  13.)  In  the  same  manner,  Paul  was 
not  chargeable  to  the  Thessalonians  when  he  first  preached 
to  them,  (1  Thess.  ii.  9  ;  2  Thess.  iii.  8;)  and  after  he  left 
Macedonia,  the  Church  at  Philippi  comnmnicated  with  him 
about  giving  and  receiving.     (Phil.  iv.  15.) 

These  facts  are  abundant  proof  of  the  existence  of  this 
custom  in  the  Apostolic  Church  ;  to  which  there  is  nothing 
analogous  at  the  present  time,  save  the  contributions  by  the 
Churches,  for  the  support  of  those  who  preach  the  gospel  in 
places  where  there  is  no  Church. 

6.  It  was  their  duty,  by  mutual  kindness  and  assistance,  to 
do  all  in  their  power  to  promote  the  Christian  character  and 
welfare  of  the  brethren.  If  a  brother  was  overtaken  in  a 
fault,  it  was  the  duty  of  the  brethren  to  do  all  in  their  power 
to  reclaim  him,  (Gal.  vi.  1  ;)  and  the  promise  of  encourage- 
ment was,  that  if  they  succeeded  they  should  "  hide  a  multi- 
tude of  sins."  (James  v.  ]  9,  20.)  The  iVpostle  exhorts  the 
Christians  not  to  seek  their  own  happiness  alone,  but  also  that 
of  the  brethren.  (Col.  iii.  13.)  They  were  also  directed  to 
"  exhort  and  admonish  such  as  neglected  their  duty  ;  to  com- 
fort the  feeble  minded  ;  to  support  the  weak  ;  and  to  exercise 

*  Bin^.  Ant.  B.  v.  c.  4,  §  1.  f  Can.  3,  4,  5.  ^  Apol.  c.  39. 

§  Of  Alois,  c.  12.     Ep.  34  or  39,  66  or  1,  28  or  35. 


136  "  MUTUAL  WATCH." 

patience  towards  all  men,"  (1  Thess.  v.  14;)  "to  stir  up 
each  other  unto  good  works,"  (Heb.  x.  24  ;)  "  and  to  confess 
their  faults  to  each  other,"  (James  v.  16  ;)  to  "  submit  them- 
selves one  to  another,  and  be  clothed  with  humility."  (1  Pet. 
V.  5.) 

This  duty  of  Church  members  has  been  called  by  some  the 
mutual  watch,  and,  if  nothing  more  is  intended  by  the  expres- 
sion, than  is  implied  in  the  above,  we  should  not  object  to  the 
phrase.  But  when  this  is  urged  as  a  part  of  the  official  duty 
of  each  member,  and  which  appertained  to  the  individual 
members,  because  the  discipline  of  the  Church  was  supposed 
to  reside  solely  in  the  congregation  ;  we  are  compelled  to  say, 
that  we  have  found  no  Scriptural  evidence  of  any  such  duty, 
nor  can  we  imagine,  that  a  custom  which  would  be  likely  to 
produce  so  much  evil,  would  be  likely  to  be  made  a  duty. 
We  say,  "  would  be  likely  to  produce  so  much  evil,"  because 
such  is  the  frailty  of  human  nature,  and  such  the  power  of 
habit,  that  it  is  impossible  for  men  who  have  not  a  more  per- 
fect knowledge  and  more  of  the  spirit  of  celestial  purity,  than 
often  falls  to  the  lot  of  humanity,  to  become  overseers,  prose- 
cutors, judges,  and  executioners  of  the  reputations  of  their 
fellow-men,  and  remain  unaffected  by  it.  Either  they  will 
neglect  the  discipline  of  the  Church,  especially  of  leading 
and  influential  men,  or  they  will  become  spies  upon  their 
neighbors'  conduct,  and  busy-bodies  in  other  men's  matters. 
Indeed,  we  can  not  imagine  it  possible,  that  an  ALL-WISE 
Being  would  make  every  weak  and  childish,  every  indiscreet 
and  ignorant,  though  perhaps  sincere  and  devoted  Christian, 
an  authoritative  overseer,  or  counselor,  over  every  wise  and 
prudent  man,  over  every  man  of  intelligence,  of  wealth  and  of 
influence,  who,  from  their  situation  and  calling,  are  inaccessi- 
ble to  their  supposed  overseers  and  counselors.  To  say  noth- 
ing of  the  spirit  of  envy  and  distrust  which  it  is  so  common 
for  persons  in  the  humbler  walks   of  life  to  indulge  towards 


DUTY  OF  COMMUNION.  137 

those  occupying  more  elevated  situations,  this  very  difference 
of  station  would  disqualify  the  lower,  from  being  the  over- 
seers and  counselors  of  the  higher,  as  it  would  be  impossible 
for  them  to  enter  into  their  views  and  feelings,  or  form  a  cor- 
rect judgment  of  what,  in  a  variety  of  cases,  was  actually  their 
duty.  It  is  not  because  this  supposed  "  mutual  watch"  au- 
thorizes an  inquisitorial  and  un-christian  spirit,  that  we  can 
not  admit  its  claim  ;  but  because  it  is  not  authorized  in  Scrip- 
ture, and  because,  while  men  are  imperfect  it  will  inevitably  pro- 
duce evils  which  are  greatly  to  he  dreaded  in  every  community. 
The  principal  argument  urged  in  favor  of  the  supposed  official 
duty  of  the  members,  is  based  on  the  language  of  our  Saviour, 
(Matt,  xviii.  15,  16,  17,)  where  he  gives  direction  concerning 
our  treatment  of  an  offending  brother.  This  argument  is 
founded  on  the  false  assumption,  that  those  interviews  we 
are  commanded  to  seek  with  those  who  have  injured  or 
offended  us,  are  a  part  of  a  judicial  proceeding  ;  or  are 
necessary  to  lay  the  foundation  for  one.  When,  however, 
the  language  is  duly  considered,  it  only  proves,  that  we  are  to 
seek  reconciliation  before  making  complaint.  And  if  we  can 
not  effect  it  alone,  we  are  to  call  in  the  aid  and  mediation  of 
friends  to  assist  in  bringing  it  about.  It  is  then,  and  only  then, 
that  we  are  at  liberty  to  make  complaint.  It  is  not  till  we 
have  done  this  that  we  are  at  liberty  to  "tell  it  to  the  Church." 
And  having  told  it  to  the  Church,  the  fairest  inference  is,  that 
our  personal  duty  has  been  fulfilled. 

7.  It  was  the  duty  of  the  members  frequently  to  communicate 
with  each  other  in  the  Holy  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
The  entire  agreement  on  this  point  will  render  it  unnecessary 
for  us  to  do  more  than  merely  refer  to  some  places  where  it  is 
spoken   of.*      Among  the  Fathers  of  the  second  century,  the 

*Matt.  xxvi.  26— -20.  Mark  xvi.  22— 25.  Luke  xxii.  19— 20.  1  Cor. 
xi.  2-3 — 25.     Acts  ii.  42,  etc. 


\B8  OBEDIENCE   TO   SUPERIORS. 

frequent  celebration  of  the  Eucharist  is  often  mentioned,  as 
by  Ignatius,  Justin  Martyr,  Tertullian,  and  many  others,  by 
whom  abstinence  from  it  was  considered  a  departure  from 
Christian  duty.* 

8.  They  were  to  obey  those  who  had  the  rule  over  them  in 
the  Church.  Paul's  command  to  the  Hebrew  Christians,  was, 
"  obey  them  that  have  the  rule  over  you  ;  for  they  watch  for 
your  souls."  (Heb.  xiii.  17.)  Timothy  and  Titus  are  both 
directed  not  to  "  let  any  man  despise  them."  (1  Tim.  iv.  12  ; 
Tit.  ii.  15.)  It  will  also  be  seen,  in  its  appropriate  place,  that 
the  various  officers  in  the  Apostolic  Church,  had  a  right  to 
rule  in  the  Church  ;  and  this  necessarily  implies  a  correspond- 
ing duty  on  the  part  of  the  people  to  obey. 

9,  It  was  their  duty  to  assist  their  rulers  in  executing  the 
discipline  of  the  Church.  This  view  of  the  subject  will  re- 
concile, in  some  degree,  the  contradictory  interpretations  put 
by  different  persons,  upon  the  case  of  the  offending  Corin- 
thian.    (1  Cor.  V.) 

The  order  in  which  the  different  members  of  ver.  3,  chap.  v. 
stand  in  the  common  version,  is  such  as  to  prevent  a  ready 
apprehension  of  the  precise  force  of  the  language.  Chang- 
ing these  to  the  natural  order  of  the  English,  in  that  verse  ; 
and  omitting  "  concerning,"  lohich  is  not  in  the  original,  and 
the  verse  will  read,  for  though  "  absent  in  body,  (but  present 
in  spirit,)  /  have  judged  (that  is,  in  a  judicial  sense)!  hi?n  that 
hath  so  done  this  deed,  as  though  I  were  present ;"  that  is,  as 
I  would  have  judged,  had  I  been  present.  This  judgment  was, 
that  when  the  Church  was  gathered  together  in  the  name  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  they  should,  "  with  the  power  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  his  spirit,  deliver  such  an  one  to 
Satan  ;"  that  is,  cast  him  out  of  the  Church.     The  sentence 

♦Ignat.  Ad.  Smyr.  c.  7.     Con.  Apos.  7,  etc. 
t  Ccmp.  vv.  1-2,  13,  and  Kob.  4GU. 


CO-OPERATION   WITH   SUPERIORS.  139 

was  by  the  Apostle  ;  but  the  execution  of  it  was  committed  to 
the  Church,  either  as  part  of  their  official  duty,  or  in  conse- 
quence of  the  Apostle's  absence  ;  and  we  learn  from  2  Cor- 
inthians, (ii.  6,)  that  they  carried  it  into  effect.  "  Sufficient 
to  such  a  man,  is  this  punishment  which  was  executed  by 
the  many.''''*  We  have  substituted  was  executed,  for  "  was  in- 
flicted," of  the  common  version  ;  deeming  ourselves  at  perfect 
liberty  to  do  so,  as  neither  is  to  be  found  in  the  original ;  and 
believing  it  conveys  to  the  reader  a  more  correct  idea  of  the 
part  performed  by  the  Church.  We  have  seen  that  Paul  was 
judge  ;  the  Church  the  executioner ;  and  hence  we  prefer  was 
executed,  to  "  was  inflicted." 

There  is  another  interpretation  of  this  passage,  which  may 
be,  after  all,  the  true  one,  and  which  we  must  not  overlook. 
Here  was  a  case  that  seems  not  to  have  been  provided  for, 
either  by  the  customs  or  canons  of  the  Corinthian  Church, 
and  hence  they  address  the  Apostle  as  the  law-giver  of  the 
Church,  for  direction  in  the  matter.  In  this  view  of  the  mat- 
ter, the  decree  of  the  Apostle  would  have  the  force  of  a 
canon,  and  the  office  of  the  Church  would  be,  the  execution  of 
the  law,  whether  that  power  resided  in  the  members  or  in  the 
officers.  The  act  of  the  Church,  therefore,  in  either  point  of 
view,  was  that  of  execution. 

This  case,  therefore,  proves,  according  to  the  rules  of  evi- 
dence by  which  we  are  guided  in  our  examination,  that  it  was 
the  practice  in  the  Apostolic  Church  for  the  members  of  the 
Church  to  assist  in  executing  the  discipline  of  the  Church. 

The  language  of  Paul  to  the  Thessalonians,  implies  the 
same  thing  : — "  Now  we  command  you,  brethren,  in  the  name 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  ye  withdraw  yourselves 
from  every  brother  that  walketh  disorderly,  and  not  after  the 
tradition  which  he  received  from  us.     And  if  any  man  obey 

*Rob.  851. 


140  REPRESENTATION  IN   COUNCILS. 

not  our  word  by  this  epistle,  note  that  man,  and  have  no  com- 
pany with  him  ;"  or,  as  others  translate  the  passage,  "  signify, 
or  point  him  out  to  me."*     (2  Thess,  iii.  6,  14.) 

The  fact  that  the  Apostle  called  upon  the  members  of  the 
various  Churches  to  assist  in  executing  the  discipline  of  the 
Church,  is  conclusive  evidence  that  he  had  a  right  to  do  so ; 
and  if  he  had  a  right  thus  to  call  upon  them,  it  follows  neces- 
sarily, that  it  was  their  duty  to  lend  their  assistance,  or  to  ohey, 
when  called  upon.  And  if  the  Apostles  had  a  right  to  do  this, 
it  further  follows,  that  the  discipline  of  the  Church  did  not 
belong  to  the  members  of  it. 

10.  They  were  to  give  their  testimony,  or  testimonials,  to 
the  character  of  candidates  for  the  office  of  Deacon,  or  Pres- 
byter. This  point  will  be  discussed  when  speaking  of  the 
qualifications  requisite  in  Deacons  and  Presbyters ;  to  which 
the  reader  is  referred. 

11.  To  give  their  assent  to  canons  framed  for  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Church. 

The  only  instance  we  have  on  record,  of  an  occurrence  of 
this  kind  in  the  Apostolic  Church,  is  recorded  in  the  fifteenth 
chapter  of  Acts.  That  account  is  briefly  this  :  Dissension 
had  arisen  at  Antioch,  in  consequence  of  certain  Jews  insist- 
ing that  the  Gentile  converts  ought  to  be  circumcised.  The 
controversy  at  length  became  so  strong,  that  Paul  and  Barna- 
bas, with  certain  brethren,  were  sent  up  to  Jerusalem  to  the 
Apostles  and  Elders  on  the  subject.  When  this  delegation 
arrived  at  Jerusalem,  they  were  received  by  the  Apostles  and 
Elders  and  the  whole  Church,  to  whom  they  declared  the  na- 
ture of  their  errand.  But  a  difl^erence  of  opinion  existed  here ; 
and  the  Apostles  and  Elders  came  together  to  hear  and  de- 
cide the  matter.  Much  debate  ensued  between  the  Elders  ; 
and  when  there  seemed  no  likelihood  of  an  agreement,  Peter 


*Rob.  7-i9. 


OFFICERS   OF  THE   CHURCH.  141 

addressed  the  assembly  ;  and  after  him,  Paul  and  Barnabas. 
The  discussion  being  ended,  James  gave  judgment,  or  pro- 
nounced sentence. 

To  this  sentence  of  James,  the  people  gave  their  assent,  as 
is  clearly  proved  by  the  narrative.  It  is  true,  that  it  does  not 
appear  that  the  Church  took  any  part  in  the  debate  ;  but  that 
it  took  place  in  their  presence,  is  clearly  proved  by  the  narra- 
tive, (vv.  12,  22,  23,  25,  28.)  "And  the  multitude  kept 
silence.,"  while  Paul  and  Barnabas  recounted  the  wonders 
wrought  among  the  Gentiles.  So  after  sentence  was  pro- 
nounced, it  is  said,  that  "  it  pleased  the  Apostles  and  Elders 
and  the  whole  Church,  to  send  chosen  men  to  Antioch,"  to  bear 
the  decree  of  the  council.  An  Epistle  was  also  sent,  begin- 
ning, "  The  Apostles  and  Elders,  and  brethren,  greeting ;" 
and  in  it  they  say,  "  it  seemed  good  unto  us,  [i.  e.  Apostles, 
Elders,  and  brethren,]  being  assembled  with  one  accord,^''  which 
language  could  not  have  been  used,  had  the  debate  not  taken 
place  in  presence  of  the  Church. 

But  not  only  was  the  debate  in  their  presence  ;  they  gave 
their  assent  to  "  the  decree  of  the  Apostles  and  Elders,"  (xvi, 
4,)  for  if  not,  how  could  they  say  in  truth,  "  it  seemed  good 
unto  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  to  us,^^  that  is,  to  the  persons  who 
wrote  the  letter,  or  to  the  Apostles  and  Elders,  and  brethren, 
**  to  lay  upon  you  no  greater  burden  than  was  necessary  ?" 

This  language  is  full  and  satisfactory  evidence  of  the  fact, 
that  the  members  of  the  Apostolic  Church  gave  their  assent  to 
new  canons  framed  for  the  government  of  the  Church. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

OFFICERS   OF   THE   CHURCH. 

The  Church  being  a  regularly  organized  society,  must  have 
had  regular  officers  to  administer  and  execute  its  laws   and 
13 


142  DEACONS,  MINISTERS  OF  THE  WORD. 

ordinances.  These  officers  were  of  three  ranks  or  grades  ; 
and  were  called  Apostles,  Presbyters  or  Bishops,  and  Dea- 
cons ;  and  each  were  ministers  in  the  Church.  It  has  been 
doubted  by  some,  whether  the  Apostles  were  officers  of  the 
Church,  and  also  whether  Deacons  were  ministers  of  the 
"Word  ;  but  the  view  we  have  taken  of  the  Scriptural  evidence, 
has  led  us  to  conclude,  that  they  were  all  both  officers  and 
ministers.  We  shall,  however,  postpone  the  examination  of 
these  questions  for  the  present ;  as  Ave  shall  be  obliged  to 
discuss  them  when  we  come  to  consider  the  power  and  duty 
of  each. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

DEACONS. 

Deacons  were  ojfficers  in  the  Church. 

1.  The  existence  of  Deacons  in  the  Apostolic  Church  is 
CONCLUSIVELY  PROVED  by  the  positive  statements  of  Scripture. 
"  Paul  and  Timotheus  to  all  the  saints  which  are  at  Philippi, 
with  the  Bishops  and  Deacons,^''  {diakonois,  Phil.  i.  1.) 
"  Likewise  the  Deacons."  (1  Tim.  iii.  8,  10.)  The  passage 
from  Philippians  is  not  only  conclusive  evidence  of  the  exist- 
ence of  persons  called  Deacons  in  the  Apostolic  Church ;  but 
also  that  they  were  a7i  order  of  men  distinct  from  the  saints, 
or  body  of  the  people  composing  the  Church,  and  is  also  pre- 
sumptive evidence  that  they  were  officers  of  the  Church  ;  and 
this  presumption  is  in  exact  accordance  with  the  positive 
statement  in  1  Timothy,  (iii.  10  :)  "  Being  first  proved,  let 
them  use  the  office  of  a  Deacon,"  [diakoneitosan.) 

2.  Deacons  are  also  mentioned  as  ministers  in  the  Church, 


QUALIFICATIONS  OF  DEACONS.  143 

by  Polycarp,*  and  by  Ignatius,  frequently.!  Deacons  are 
also  mentioned  by  Justin  Martyr,:};  Clement  of  Alexandria,^ 
and  by  Tertullian,  in  numerous  places.  Indeed,  from  the 
days  of  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian,  it  is  admitted  by  all,  that 
Deacons  were  ministers  and  officers  in  the  Church.  And  the 
language  of  Polycarp  and  Ignatius  leave  no  doubt  that  they 
were  so,  in  their  days. 

The  qualijications  of  Deacons. 

1.  A  Deacon  must  be  a  man  in  whose  character  are  min- 
gled "  gravity,  perfect  honesty,  temperance,  and  charity." 
(1  Tim.  iii.  8.)  When  the  Apostle,  as  in  this  case,  has  made 
a  part  of  his  description  negative,  by  specifying  vices  to  which 
one  must  not  be  subject,  we  have  taken  the  liberty  of  ma-, 
king  the  description  positive,  by  substituting  the  virtue  which 
the  antithesis  implies. 

2.  He  must  be  a  sincere  Christian,  "  holding  the  mystery  of 
the  faith  in  a  pure  conscience."     (1  Tim.  iii.  9.) 

3.  He  must  be  a  man  "  who  ruled  his  house  and  children 
well."     (1  Tim.  iii.  12.) 

4.  He  must  have  but  one  wife,  and  she  must  be  a  woman 
of  "  gravity,  strict  probity,  sobriety,  and  perfect  uprightness  of 
character."     (1  Tim.  iii.  11,  12.) 

5.  He  must  have  received  the  testimony  of  the  Church,  or, 
testimonials  from  the  CAwrcA,  to  his  unblemished  and  Christian 
character,  and  to  his  fitness  for  the  oflice.  This  is  a  legiti- 
mate inference  from,  or  rather  proved  by,  the  language  used 
in  giving  an  account  of  the  appointment  of  "  the  seven,"  in 
the  sixth  chapter  of  Acts ;  and  who,  from  the  nature  of  the 
office  they  filled,  "  the  ministry  of  tables!^''  [diakonein  trapezais,) 

*  Ep.  Phil.  c.  5. 

t  Kp.  Eph.  c.  •>.     Ep.  Mag.  cc.  2,  6,  13.     Ep.  Trail,  cc.  2,  3,  7.     Ep. 
Phil.  Intd.  cc.  4,  7,  10.     Ep.  Srayr.  cc.  8,  12.     Ep.  Poly-  c.  6. 
:j:  Apol.  i.  cc.  85,  87.  §  Strom.  6.  p.  667,  Ed.  Par.  1631. 


144  TESTIMONIALS  OF  DEACONS. 

as  distinguished  from  the  exclusive  "  ministry  of  the  word,^* 
[diakonia  ton  logon,)  have  ever  been  called  Deacons. 

The  command  of  the  Apostles  to  tlie  brethren  was,  "  Look 
ye  out,  {episkepsasthe,  look  at,  in  order  to  select,  i.  e.  seek  out,)* 
seven  men  of  honest  report,  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  wis- 
dom, whom  we  may  appoint  over  this  business."  "  And  ihey 
chose  [exelexanou,  selected,  chose,  or  gave  the  preference'\  to) 
Stephen  and  others." 

The  word  rendered  of  honest  report,  [marturoumenous,) 
conveys  a  much  stronger  idea  than  our  translation,  and  lite- 
rally signifies,  that  they  were  to  be  persons  to  whose  unblem- 
ished and  Christian  character  they  could  bear  "  honorable 
testimony,"!  or,  as  Professor  Robinson  says,  in  this  place,  men 
who  were  lauded,  that  is,  for  their  excellent  character.  This 
testimony,  or  laudation,  was,  as  the  word  implies,^  and  as  the 
narrative  requires  us  to  believe,  to  be  borne  by  the  "  multitude 
of  the  disciples,"  composing  the  Church,  and  hence  the  direc- 
tion of  the  Apostles  to  the  Church  was,  select  from  among 
yourselves  seven  men,  [andras,)  that  is,  men  "  possessing  all 
the  qualifications  which  manhood  implies,  as  courage,  forti- 
tude, judgment,"  &c.;||  to  whose  unblemished  and  Christian 
character  you  can  bear  "  honorable  testimony."  And  this  tes- 
timony was  borne  by  the  Church  in  the  act  of  selecting  ac- 
cording to  the  direction  of  the  Apostles.  No  matter,  therefore, 
by  what  means  it  was  carried  into  effect,  it  was  the  testimony 
of  the  Church,  or  testimonials  from  the  Church,  to  the  Christ- 
ian character  of  the  seven. 

This  interpretation  reconciles  the  different  constructions 
put  upon  this  passage  by  opposing  parties,  as  it  points  out  the 
part  borne  by  all.     The  people  selected  ;  or,  if  it  be  preferred, 

»  Rob.  314.  t  Comp.  L»ike  x.  42  j  xiv.  7  ;  Rob.  251. 

jRob.  495.  §  Rob.  p.  407.  Corap.  martureo. 

tl  Comp.  Luke  xxiv.  19-     John  i.  30.     Jas.  ii.  2.     Rob.  58. 


ORDINATION  OF  DEACONS.  145 

elected,    certain    persons   to  be  Deacons;    but  the  Apostles 
ordained  them.     This  continued  to  be  the  practice  for  a  long 
time,  as  we  shall  have  occasion  to  mention,  when  speaking  of 
Presbyters  and  Apostles. 
Manner  of  making  Deacons. 

1.  It  was  requisite  for  a  candidate  for  the  order  or  office  of 
Deacon,  to  present  himself  to  an  Apostle,  and  "  be  proved," 
that  is,  to  satisfy  the  Apostle  that  he  possessed  the  requisite 
qualifications.  He  must  "be  proved,"  (1  Tim.  iii.  10,)  that  is, 
"  examined  or  put  to  trial,"*  and  "  be  found  blameless  ;"  in  a 
judicial  sense,  irreprehensible.j  This  necessarily  implies  a 
trial,  or  by  analogy,  an  examination.  Besides,  the  word  doki- 
mazcsthosan,  used  by  the  Apostle  in  this  place,  was  a  technical 
term,  denoting  the  examination  of  a  candidate  for  an  ojjice,  as 
will  be  shown  when  we  come  to  consider  the  case  of  Pres- 
byters, 

2.  A  Deacon  was  required  to  be  ordained  by  an  Apostle, 
that  is,  be  appointed  to  the  office  by  an  Apostle,  and  be  set 
apart  by  prayer,  and  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  an  Apostle. 
We  should  be  authorized  to  presume  this,  from  the  tenor  of 
the  language  used  by  Paul  in  his  Epistle  to  Timothy ;  but  the 
positive  statements  made  in  Acts  (vi.  3,  6)  leave  no  room  for 
inference.  The  Apostles  direct  the  brethren  to  select  seven 
men,  "  whom  we  may  appoint.''''  And  when  the  brethren  had 
selected  the  seven,  "  they  set  them  before  the  Apostles,  who 
prayed  and  laid  their  hands  upon  them." 

Of  the  powers  and  duties  of  Deacons. 

1.  The  first  duty  of  a  Deacon  was  to  receive  and  distri- 
bute the  alms  of  the  Church. 

That  the  primary  object  in  the  appointment  of  Deacons  was 
to  provide  suitable  persons  to  take  care  of  the  alms  of  the 
Church,  is  proved  by  the  narrative  in  Acts  vi : — "  And  there 

*  Rob.  203,  204.  t  R  ob.  56. 

13* 


146  NO   COMMUNITY  OF  GOODS, 

arose  a  murmuring  among  the  Grecians  against  the  Hebrews, 
that  their  widows  were  neglected  in  the  daily  ministrations  ;" 
wherefore  the  seven  were  appointed  "  to  this  business." 

That  this  ministration  was  not  of  common  property,  from 
which  the  whole  Church  was  fed,  as  has  sometimes  been-sup- 
posed,  is  evident  from  two  considerations:  (1.)  ''Widows, 
who  were  widows  indeed  ;"  who  were  in  an  emphatical  sense 
"  bereaved,"  if  over  sixty  years  of  age,  were  to  be  received 
into  the  number  of  those  who  were  maintained  at  the  charge 
or  expense  of  the  Church,  (1  Tim.  v.  3,  9,  16  ;)  but  it  does 
not  appear  that  any  others  were  thus  supported,  or  that  any 
others  "  were  neglected  in  the  daily  ministration"  of  the  alms. 
(2.)  Though  the  Church  at  Jerusalem  enjoyed,  it  did  not 
possess  "  all  things  in  common."  This  is  in  effect  asserted  in 
the  narrative  itself.  Thus  in  Acts  ii.  44,  45,  it  is  said,  that 
"  they  that  believed  were  together,  and  had  all  things  common  ; 
and  SOLD  their  possessions  and  goods  and  parted  them  to  all 
men,  as  every  man  had  need."  The  sale  and  partition  there- 
fore, was  not  of  the  whole  estate  ;  but  only  of  so  much  as 
they  had  need. 

So  again  in  Acts  iv.  32,  it  is  said,  that  "  the  multitude  of 
them  that  believed  were  of  one  heart  and  of  one  soul ;  neither 
said  any  of  them  that  aught  of  the  things  he  possessed  was 
his  own ;  but  they  had  all  things  common."  This  is  an  ex- 
press assertion,  that  property  was  possessed  by  individuals  ; 
though  used  or  enjoyed  for  the  common  benefit.  The  same 
conclusion  must  be  drawn  from  Peter's  language  to  Ananias  : 
"  While  thy  property  remained,  was  it  not  thine  own  ?  and 
after  it  was  sold,  was  it  not  in  thine  own  power  ?"  (Acts 
V.3.) 

It  may  be  said,  that  the  language  in  Acts  iv.  34,  35,  is  op- 
posed to  this  opinion :  "  Neither  was  there  any  among  them 
that  lacked,  for  as  many  as  were  possessed  of  houses  and 
lands,  sold  them,  and  brought  the  prices   of  the  things   that 


IN  THE   CHURCH    IN   JERUSALEM.  147 

were  sold  ;  and  laid  them  down  at  the  Apostle's  feet,  and  dis- 
tribution was  made  to  every  man  according  as  he  had  need." 
In  reference  to  this,  however,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind,  that 
in  Acts  ii.  44,  45,  the  "  sale  and  partition  of  possessions  and 
goods,"  is  expressly  limited  to  the  need  or  wants  of  the 
Church ;  and  that  only  two  verses  preceding  the  ones  quoted 
above,  the  individual  possession  of  property  is  no  less  dis- 
tinctly recognized ;  neither  of  which  could  be  true,  if  these 
verses  prove  a  community  of  goods. 

And  further,  the  partition  here,  which  prevented  any  from 
lacking,  was  only  as  every  man  had  need,  that  is,  to  such  as 
were  in  want,  or  had  need  of  such  a  division,*  and  hence  the 
sale  was  only  for  that  purpose — of  so  much  as  was  needed 
to  supply  the  wants  of  the  Church. 

These  passages  compel  us  to  believe,  that  though  the  prop- 
erty of  the  Saints  at  Jerusalem  was  enjoyed  by  all  in  common, 
IT  WAS  NOT  POSSESSED  BY  ALL  ;  that  the  sale  and  partition  of 
their  estates  was  only  of  so  much  as  they  had  need  ;  and  that 
this  was  voluntary,  and  not  by  the  command  of  the  Apostles, 
and  that  no  such  thing  as  a  community  of  goods  existed 
among  the  Christians  at  Jerusalem.  Hence  it  necessarily 
follows,  that  the  Deacons  could  only  have  the  distribution  of 
the  alms  of  the  Church. 

2.  Though  the  first  business  of  the  Deacons  was  to  take 
charge  of  the  alms  of  the  Church,  they  were  also  to  preach, 
as  occasion  offered. 

The  qualifications  required  in  a  Deacon,  would  naturally 
lead  to  this  inference.  They  were  not  only  to  possess  all  the 
ordinary  virtues,  but  also  to  have  a  "  strong  testimony"  that 
they  were  men  "full  of  wisdom  and  the  Holy  Ghost."  In 
conformity  with  this  conclusion,  was  the  conduct  of  the  newly 
ordained  Deacons.     "  And  Stephen,  full  of  faith  and  power. 


Rob.  897. 


148  DUTIES  OF  DEACONS. 

did  great  wonders  and  miracles  among  the  people,"  (Acts 
vi.  8  ;)  and  that  this  was  accompanied  by  preaching  is  evi- 
dent, from  the  course  pursued  by  his  enemies.  At  first  they 
disputed  with  him,  (vi.  9,)  and  then  suborned  men  to  say  they 
had  "  heard  him  speak  blasphemous  words."  (Acts  vi.  11, 
13.)  And  when  those  at  Jerusalem  were  scattered  abroad, 
Philip,  who  was  one  of  the  seven,  "  went  down  to  Samaria  and 
preached  Christ  and  the  kingdom  of  God,"  (Acts  viii.  5,  12,) 
working  miracles  among  them.  And  from  Samaria,  he  went 
to  Azotus,  ''preaching  from  city  to  city,  until  he  came  to  Cas- 
sarea,"  (viii.  40.) 

That  preaching  was  part  of  the  duty  of  Deacons  in  the  age 
next  succeeding  the  Apostolic,  there  can  be  no  doubt.  Poly- 
carp  calls  them  "  the  ministers  of  God  in  Christ."*  And 
Ignatius  speaks  of  them,  as  "  the  ministers  of  the  mysteries  of 
Jesus  Christ."! 

3.  They  were  to  baptize.  Philip  "  baptized''  those  who 
believed  at  Samaria,  (Acts  viii.  12,)  and  also  the  eunuch  of 
Ethiopia,  (viii.  36,  38.) 

Though  Deacons  baptized  in  the  age  follo\\ing  the  Apos- 
tolic, yet  it  was  only  with  the  consent  of  the  Bishop.  Thus 
Ignatius  says  :  "  It  is  not  lawful  without  the  Bishop,  either  to 
baptize^  or  to  celebrate  the  Holy  Communion."^  And  Ter- 
tullian  says  :  "  The  highest  priest,  that  is,  the  Bishop,  hath 
the  right  of  giving  baptism ;  after  him  the  Presbyters  and 
Deacons,  but  not  without  authority  of  the  Bishop."'^ 

4.  They  were  to  assist  their  superiors  in  ruling  in  the  Church. 
It  is  not  easy,  perhaps  not  possible,  for  us  to  decide  what 
authority  the  Deacons  had  in  the  Apostolic  Church  ;  but  the 
language  of  Paul  to  Timothy  compels  us  to  believe  that  they 
had  some  authority,  in  some  cases.     Of  a  Bishop,  Paul  says, 

*  Ep.  Phil.  c.  7.  t  Ep.  Maj?.  c.  6. 

:f  Ep.  Smyr.  c.  8.  §De  Bap.  c.  17. 


DUTIES  OF  DEACONS.  149 

"  he  must  be  one  that  ruleth  well  his  own  house,  having  his 
children  in  subjection  ;"  and  of  a  Deacon,  he  says,  "  let  him 
be  one  who  rules  his  children  and  his  own  house  well." 
(1  Tim.  iii.  4,  12.) 

The  language  in  reference  to  both  officers  is  the  same  ;  and 
in  reference  to  the  former,  the  Apostle,  by  way  of  explana- 
tion, or  as  assigning  a  reason  why  this  qualification  was  ne 
cessary,  says  in  parenthesis  :  "  For  if  a  man  know  not  how 
to  rule  his  own  house,  how  shall  he  take  care  of  [literally, 
how  shall  he  be  fit  to  have  the  care  over\*  the  Church  of  God  ?" 
(1  Tim.  iii.  5.)  Inasmuch,  therefore,  as  the  ability  to  rule 
one's  house  was  necessary  to  qualify  a  Bishop  to  rule  in  the 
Church  of  God  ;  the  same  qualification  was  required  in  a 
Deacon,  evidently  for  the  same  purpose. 

5.  They  were  to  assist  in  the  administration  of  the  Eucharist. 
This  is  nowhere  expressly  asserted  in  Scripture  ;  but  in  the 
days  of  Justin  Martyr,  A.  D.  150,  it  was  a  common  practice. 
Thus  he  says  :t  "  Those  whom  we  call  Deacons  give  to  each 
of  those  present  a  portion  of  the  bread  which  hath  been 
blessed,  and  of  the  wine  mixed  with  water ;  and  carry  some 
away  for  those  who  are  absent."  And  in  another  place  he 
says  :\  '*  The  consecrated  elements  are  then  distributed  and 
received  by  every  one  ;  and  a  portion  is  sent  by  the  Deacons 
to  those  who  are  absent."  The  same  thing  is  abundantly  wit- 
nessed to  in  later  times. 

6.  To  render  obedience  to  the  command  of  an  Apostle. 
For  a  consideration  of  the  question,  whether  an  Apostle  had 
authority  over  Bishops  and  Deacons,  the  reader  is  referred  to 
the  appropriate  head,  where  we  shall  consider  the  power  of 
an  Apostle ;  only  remarking  here,  that  if  the  Apostles  had 
authority  over  Deacons,  then  were  Deacons  bound  to  obey. 

*  Rob.  312.  t  Apol.  i.  c.  83.  :|:  Apol.  i.  c.  S7. 


150  PRIMITIVE   USAGE  OF  PRESBYTER  AND  BISHOP. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

PRESBYTERS  OR  BISHOPS* 

It  is  evident  from  a  comparison  of  certain  passages  of 
Scripture,  that  the  terms  Presbyter  and  Bishop  are  often  used 
in  the  Bible  to  designate  the  same  class  of  ojfficers.  Thus  in 
Acts,  (xx.  17,)  it  is  said  that  when  Paul  was  at  Miletus,  "he 
sent  to  Ephesus  and  called  the  Presbyters  of  the  Church  ;"  and 
in  his  address  to  them,  (ver.  28,)  he  tells  them,  "  to  take  heed 
to  themselves  ahd  to  all  the  flock,  over  which  the  Holy 
Ghost  hath  made  them  Bishops.''^  So  the  Apostle  "  ordained 
Presbyters  in  every  Church,"  (Acts  xiv.  23  ;)  but  the  di- 
rection of  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  is,  "  to  the  Bishops 
and  Deacons.'''' 

This  indiscriminate  use  of  the  words  Bishop  and  Presbyter, 
is  never  found  out  of  the  New  Testament,  nor  later  than  about 
A.  D.  65.  In  the  days  of  Ignatius,  107,  the  name  Bishop  was 
exclusively  used  to  designate  the  Apostolic  Bishop,  and  the 
name  Presbyter,  as  the  name  of  an  office  to  denote  that 
which  St.  Paul  calls  a  Presbyter  or   Bishop.     There  are   a 

*  The  English  word  Bishop,  is  derived  from  the  Greek  Episcopos.  This 
word  was  adopted  into  Latin  without  change,  Episcopus,  but  in  most  lan- 
guages it  has  undergone  some  modification  ;  Anglo-Saxon,  bisceop  ;  Dutch, 
bischof ;  Swedish,  biskop  ;  Polish,  Biskupa  ;  Welsh,  Esbog  ;  Gaelic,  Es- 
buig;  Irish,  Easbog  ;  Portuguese,  bispo  ;  Spanish,  oj^isjjo;  Italian,  vcscovo; 
French,  iveque. 

The  word  Presbyter,  contracted  into  Priest,  is  also  from  the  Greek  ; 
Latin,  Presbyter  ;  Spanish  and  Portuguese,  ^res6zVero  ;  French  and  Italian, 
pritre  ;  German  and  Dutch,  priester  ;  Danish,  prceest  /Swedish,  presi;  Ice- 
landic, prestr. 

It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  these  words,  in  all  these  languages,  are 
technical  terms  of  ecclesiastical  phraseology,  and  that  they  always  denote 
distinct  offices,  never  being  used  interchangeably. 


PRIIVIITIVE   USAGE   OF  PRESBYTER  AND    BISHOP.  151 

few  passages,  however,  in  the  Fathers,  in  which  it  is  said  the 
words  are  used  indiscriminately.  Two  of  these  will  fall 
under  other  heads ;  the  remainder  we  shall  consider  in  this 
place.      The  passages  in  question  are  from  Irenaius. 

"  When  we  refer  them  [the  heretics]  to  that  tradition  which 
is  from  the  Apostles ;  which  by  the  succession  of  the  Fa- 
thers, {Presbyterorum,)  hath  been  preserved  in  the  Church,  we 
provoke  them  ;  they  oppose  the  tradition,  saying  that  they  are 
wiser  than,  not  only  the  Fathers,  {Preshyteris,)  but  the  Apos- 
tles also."* 

"  It  becometh  those  who  are  in  the  Church,  to  learn  from 
those  Fathers  (Preshyteris)  who  have  their  succession  (or  in- 
heritance) from  the  Apostles  ;  who  with  the  Episcopate  [Epis- 
copatus)  have  received  the  gift  of  certain  truth. "f 

"  From  all  such,  therefore,  it  becometh  us  to  keep  aloof, 
and  truly  to  adhere  to  those  [Fathers]  who  maintain  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Apostles  ;  and  according  to  the  custom  of  the  Fa- 
thers, [Preshyteris,)  do  show  forth  sound  speech  and  conversa- 
tion without  offense."! 

In  these  passages,  which  are  all  there  are  to  this  purpose 
in  Iren2eus,  he  uses  Preshyter  in  the  same  sense  in  which  we 
now  use  the  phrase  "  the  Fathers,"  to  denote  those  eminent 
men  who  had  gone  before,  or  those  aged  and  honorable  men 
then  living.  Nor  is  this  usage  peculiar  to  him.  Thus  Pa- 
pias.  Bishop  of  Hierapolis,  who  was  "  the  hearer  of  St.  John,"§ 
tells  us  that  "  he  had  treasured  up  in  his  memory  what  he  had 
received  from  the  Fathers,  [Presbyters,]  and  had  recorded  it."|| 
Among  those  Presbyters,  or  Elders,  or  FATHERS,  were  the 
Apostles,  Peter,  James,  John,  Matthew,  Philip,  Thomas,  and 


*Adv.  Haer.  L.  iii.  c  2.  f  Adv.  Haer.  L.  iv.  c.  43. 

X  Adv.  Hser.  L.  iv.  c.  44.  §  Iren.  Adv.  Haer.  L.  v.  c.  33. 

Ij  Pref.  luterp.  Lord's  Dec.  in  Euseb.  L.  iii.  c.  39. 


152  PRESBYTER  AND  BISHOP  NOT  THE  SAME. 

Andrew.  Now  Irenaeus  was  an  admirer  of  Papias,*  and 
would  therefore  be  likely  to  use  language  in  a  similar  manner. 
And  we  know  he  did  do  it.  Thus  he  tells  usf  that  "  Polycarp 
was  ordained  Bishop  [Episcopos)  of  Smyrna."  But  when 
writing  to  Florinus  he  calls  him  "  that  blessed  and  Apostolic 
Father,"  ( Presbyter.):]:  And  in  the  same  letter  he  speaks  of 
those  "  Fathers  (Presbyters)  who  were  the  immediate  disci- 
ples of  the  Apostles."  So  also  this  same  Irenscus  writing  to 
Victor,  Bishop  of  Rome,  speaks  of  "  those  Fathers  (Presby- 
ters) who  governed  the  Churchbe  fore  Soter."§  These  "Fa^ 
thers"  were  Anicetus,  and  Pius,  and  Hyginus,  and  Telespho- 
rus,  and  Sixtus,"  whom,  in  another  place,  he  tells  us  were 
Bishops,  [Episcopos,)  and  "  successors  of  the  Apostles  in  the 
government  of  the  Churches."! 

That  this  mode  of  expression  was  common  in  the  days  of 
Irenaeus,  is  also  evident  from  other  primitive  writers.  Thus 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  speaks  of  Pantaneus,  his  master,  as 
"  the  blessed  Father,  (Presbyter. ")T[  And  Alexander,  Bish- 
op of  Jerusalem,  writing  to  Origen,  calls  Pantaneus  and  Cle- 
ment those  "  blessed  Fathers."**  And  Dionysius,  Bishop  of 
Alexandria,  calls  his  predecessor,  Heraclas,  "  the  blessed  Fa- 
ther," {papa.)]\  This  title  was  also  given  to  Cyprian,  Bishop 
of  Carthage,:}:^  and  was  indeed,  in  the  fourth  century,  a  name 
common  to  all  Bishops. "^^  The  same  language  is  also  incor- 
porated into  many  of  the  ancient  Liturgies,  as  that  of  St. 
Basil, li II  of  Alexandria,^!"  of  Ethiopia,***  etc.  If  further 
proof  were  necessary  as  to  the  primitive  understanding  of  this 

*  Euseb.  L.  iii.  c.  39.         f  Adv.  Haer.  L.  iii.  c.  3.         ^lEuseb.  L.  v.  c.  20. 

$  Euseb.  L.  v.  c.  24.  ||  Adv.  User.  L.  iii.  c.  3. 

IT  Hypot.  in  Euseb.  L.  vi.  c.  14.         **  Euseb.  vi.  14. 

tf-  Euseb.  vii.  7.  Xt  Ep.  23,  3 1 ,  3G,    Ed.  Oxon. 

§§Aug.  Com.  Ps.  44,    Chrysos.  Horn.  3.  Ad.  Pop.     Bing-.  ii.  c.  2,  §  7. 

nil  Brett.  Coll.  Lit.  79.         ITU  Pal.  Orig.  Lit.  L  80. 

*** Brett.  Coll.  Lit.  84. 


PRESBYTER  AND   BISHOP   NEVER   THE   SAME.  153 

language,  it  may  be  drawn  from  Eusebiiis.  Thus,  those 
whom  Clement  of  Alexandria  had  called  "  the  blessed  Pres- 
byters," in  the  sense  of  Ancients,  or  Fathers,  Eusebius  in 
one  place  calls  "  the  oldest  Presbyters"  or  Fathers,*  and  in 
another  place,  "  the  Ancient  Fathers. "f  These  facts  are 
abundantly  sufficient  to  prove  the  correctness  of  the  interpre- 
tation we  have  put  upon  this  language. 

But  there  is  still  other  evidence,  that  Irenaeus  did  not  de- 
sign to  speak  of  the  ojffice  of  Presbyter,  as  the  same  as  Bishop. 
This  will  be  evident  upon  an  examination  of  the  places  where 
he  speaks  of  the  succession  of  Bishops.  Thus  he  says : 
"  We  can  enumerate  those  whom  the  Apostles  appointed 
Bishops  (Episcopi)  in  the  Churches,  and  their  successors, 
even  to  us.  ...  In  this  order  and  hy  this  succession  that 
tradition  in  the  Church,  which  is  from  the  Apostles,  hath  come 
uninterruptedly  to  us."|  Again  :  "  True  knowledge  is  the 
doctrine  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  ancient  customs  of  the 
Church  throughout  the  whole  world — the  characteristic  of  the 
body  of  Christ,  next  to  the  succession  of  Bishops^  to  whom 
they  delivered  the  Church  in  every  place."^  And  again  : 
"  For  all  thcvse  [heretics]  are  far  later  than  the  Bishops  to 
whom  the  Apostles  delivered  the  Churches,  as  we  have  care- 
fully shown  in  the  third  book  "|| 

Those  who  will  carefully  compare  the  language  here  ap- 
plied to  Bishops,  with  what  Irenaeus  says  of  "  the  Fathers" 
(Presbyters)  before  quoted,  must  be  satisfied  that  he  is  not 
speaking  of  the  same  office  in  both  cases,  whatever  sense  the 
reader  may  prefer  to  put  upon  "  Presbyter."  The  language 
applied  to  Bishops  is  clearly  official ;  that  applied  to  Presby- 
ters, we  think  is  not  so.  If  our  readers  differ  from  us  on  this 
point,  then  they  must  apply  it  to  another   office   than  that  of 

*  E.  H.  vi.  14.  t  E.  H.  iii.  3.  X  Adv.  Haer.  L.  iii.  c.  3. 

§  Adv.  Haer.  L.  iv.  c.  G3.  ||  Adv.  Har.  L.  v.  c.  20. 

14 


154  QUALIFICATIONS  OF  PRESBYTERS. 

Bishop.  We  might  also  quote  a  passage  from  Jerome  on  this 
subject,  rendered  famous  for  its  always  being  quoted  on  ordi- 
nation by  Presbyters,  which  we  shall  by  and  by  have  occa- 
sion to  consider  more  at  large.  He  says  :*  "  The  name  of 
Presbyter  denotes  age^  that  of  Bishop,  office;''''  which  is  pre- 
cisely the  sense  we  have  given  it. 

That  Bishops  or  Presbyters,  or,  for  convenience.  Presbyter- 
bishops,  were  officers  in  the  Apostolic  Church,  follows  ne- 
cessarily, from  what  has  been  offered  under  the  preceding 
head  ;  but  if  there  were  any  doubts  remaining,  St.  Paul's  lan- 
guage to  Timothy,  (1  Tim.  iii.  1,)  would  put  an  end  to  them. 
"  If  a  man  desire  the  office  of  a  Bishop,''^  &c. 

Of  the  qualifications  of  Presbyter-bishops. 

1.  The  candidate  for  the  office  of  Bishop  in  the  Apostolic 
Church,  was  required  to  possess  an  unblemished  character. 
"  He  must  be  blameless  and  of  good  behavior."  (1  Tim.  iii.  2.) 
He  must  not  only  be  of  "  good  behavior,"  having  "  his  appear- 
ance, conduct  and  carriage,  decent,  grave,  and  correct,  but  he 
must  be  one  who  was  perfectly  irreprehensible."'\ 

2.  He  must  be  a  man  who  was  "  vigilant,  sober,  given  to 
hospitality,  not  given  to  wine,  no  striker,  not  greedy  of  filthy 
lucre,  but  patient,  not  a  brawler,  not  covetous."  (1  Tim.  iii. 
2,  3.)  That  is,  he  must  be  a  man  whose  conduct  was  watch- 
ful and  prudent ;  whose  practices  were  hospitable  and  liberal, 
charitable  and  temperate  ;  and  whose  demeanor  was  quiet, 
peaceable,  and  patient. 

3.  He  must  be  an  experienced  Christian  ;  not  "  a  novice," 
{neophuton,)  "  a  young  or  new  convert^X  But  he  must  be  one 
who  was  "  settled  and  grounded  in  the  faith,"  whose  charac- 
ter had  become  established,  "  lest  he  be  lifted  up  with  pride 
and  fall  into  condemnation." 

4.  He  must  be  capable  of  teaching  and  instructing.     "  Apt 

*Ep.  85.  t  Rob.  57.  :t  1  Tim.  iii.  G.     Rob.  537. 


QUALIFICATIONS  OF  PRESBYTERS.  155 

to  teach,"  (didaktikon,  1  Tim.  iii.  2,)  that  is,  able  to  teach  and 
instruct  others. 

5.  He  must  have  hut  one  wife,  (1  Tim.  iii.  2  ;)  which 
command  was  necessary  in  those  days,  as  polygamy  was 
allowed  by  the  laws  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  but  forbidden 
by  the  law  of  Christ. 

6.  He  must  be  a  man  "  who  ruled  his  children  and  house 
well."     (1  Tim.  iii.  4.) 

7.  He  must  have  received  the  testimony  of,  or  testimonials 
from,  the  Church. 

"  He  must  have  a  good  report  of  them  which  are  without." 
(1  Tim.  iii.  7.)  In  the  ambiguous  language  of  the  English 
version  of  this  text,  it  is  not  easy  to  determine  what  is  the 
Apostle's  meaning.  Much  of  the  difficulty,  however,  may  be 
obviated  by  a  more  literal  translation,  "  He  must  have  {mar- 
turian  kalen)  an  honorable  testimony*  from  those  without," 
Adopt  this  rendering,  and  the  only  difficulty  is,  to  determine 
who  are  intended  by  the  phrase,  apo  ton  exothen,  ^^from  with- 
out.^'' 

Most  commentators  and  lexicographers  explain  this  pas- 
sage, by  saying  that  the  phrase  "  from  without,"  designates 
those  who  were  without  the  Church,  or  not  Christians,  citing 
in  proof,  (Col.  iv.  5,)  "  Walk  in  wisdom,  {pros  tons  eoco,)  to- 
wards those  without J^  But  to  us  it  seems  evident,  that  this  is 
a  misinterpretation  of  the  passage,  and  that  it  derives  no 
sanction  from  the  text  quoted  in  its  support.  The  epistle  of 
Paul  to  the  Colossians,  was  addressed  "  to  the  saints  and 
faithful  brethren  at  Colosse,"  (i.  2,)  and  the  command  to  walk 
in  wisdom  toward  those  "  without,"  signifies  towards  those 
who  were  not  included  within,  or  among  those  to  whom  he 
was  speaking,  that  is,  the  saints  and  faithful  brethren,  and  who 
therefore  were  not  Christians.     Apply  the  rule  furnished  by 

*  Rob.  496. 


156  PRESBYTERS  TO  RECEIVE 

this  passage,  in  construing  the  one  under  consideration,  and 
it  will  fully  support  the  position  we  have  taken. 

Paul,  in  this  part  of  his  Epistle  to  Timothy,  is  speaking 
generally  of  officers  of  the  Church,  and  in  this  passage,  par- 
ticularly of  Bishops,  who  were  one  class  of  those  officers, 
and  hence  "  from  without"  must  denote  those  not  included 
within  the  class  of  persons  of  whom  he  was  speaking,  that  is, 
who  were  not  officers  in  the  Church.  Should  it  be  said  that 
this  interpretation  includes  all  who  were  not  officers  in  the 
Church,  whether  Christians  or  not,  we  answer,  that  though 
in  an  English  dress  it  might  seem  to  have  this  extended  sig- 
nification, yet  it  is  limited  in  its  application,  by  the  sense  and 
idiom  of  the  Greek,  to  those  who  were  Christians.  The 
preposition,  apo,  which  precedes  Ion  eocothen,  is  used  in  the 
New  Testament  only  in  reference  "  to  such  objects  as  before 
were  on,  by,  or  with  another,  but  now  separated  from  it,  and 
when,  as  in  this  case,  it  follows  a  verb  of  having  or  receivings 
denotes  the  origin  or  source  from  whence  the  thing  pro- 
ceeded."* 

Now  the  relation  which  a  Christian  bore  to  the  world,  was 
not  changed  by  his  appointment  to  an  office  in  the  Church, 
but  it  was  changed  in  reference  to  the  members  of  the  Church 
with  whom  he  had  before  been  associated  as  only  a  private 
Christian,  but  from  whom  he  was  now  separated,  by  being 
made  a  public  officer.  The  term  "  without"  is  therefore  lim- 
ited to  those  with  whom  the  officer  had  been  associated,  and 
in  reference  to  whom  his  relation  was  changed  by  his  appoint- 
ment to  an  office  in  the  Church,  that  is,  to  the  members  of  the 
Church,  and  it  was  from  them,  therefore,  that  this  honorable 
testimony  was  to  come. 

In  confirmation  of  this  conclusion,  we  have  also  the  im- 
probability of  the  contrary  supposition.     That  a  candidate  for 

*Rob.  77,  99. 


TESTIMONIALS  FROM  THE  PEOPLE.  157 

the  office  of  Bishop  in  the  Christian  Church,  should  be  obliged 
to  have  "  an  honorable  testimony  from  those  who  were  not 
Christians,"  is  so  contrary  to  our  notions  of  probability,  that 
we  can  not  conceive  it  possible.  Besides,  it  is  not  easy  to 
imagine  how  Timothy  and  Titus  could  know  whether  those 
they  were  to  ordain  in  Ephesus  and  Crete,  had  been  "  of  good 
report"  among  those  who  were  not  Christians,  before  their 
conversion  to  Christianity,  unless  they  obtained  the  informa- 
tion from  the  Church.  And  if  the  testimony  of  the  Church 
was  to  be  the  evidence  of  this  fact,  it  would  still  be  what  we 
suppose — the  testimony,  or  testimonials  of  the  Church. 

This  hypothesis  relieves  the  passage,  (Acts  xiv.  23,)  "  And 
they  ordained  them  Presbyters  in  every  city,"  of  the  difficul- 
ties which  have  hitherto  been  supposed  to  attend  it.  We 
learn  from  the  Apostolic  history,  that  after  Paul  and  Barnabas 
had  preached  the  gospel  in  certain  cities  of  Asia,  "  they  re- 
turned again  to  Lystria,  and  Iconium,  and  Antioch,  confirming 
the  souls  of  the  disciples,  exhorting  them  to  continue  in  the 
faith,  ordaining  Presbyters  for  them  in  every  Church  ;  having 
prayed  with  fasting,  they  commended  them  to  the  Lord,  on 
whom  they  believed,  and  passing  through  Pisidia,  they  came 
to  Pamphylia."     (Acts  xiv.  22—24.) 

We  have  given  this  literal  rendering,  in  order  that  the  Eng- 
lish reader  may  see  the  force  and  connection  of  the  language 
made  use  of  by  the  historian.  The  course  of  the  narrative, 
therefore,  compels  us  to  believe,  that  the  "  confirmation,  ex- 
hortation, and  ordination,^''  or  whatever  else  it  might  have  been, 
were  all  performed  by  the  same  persons,  that  is,  by  Paul  and 
Barnabas.  It  is  objected,  however,  by  those  who  assert  the 
absolute  independency  of  each  particular  congregation,  that 
cheirotonesantes,  translated  ordaining,  denotes  an  election  hy 
the  people,  and  that  it  must  be  so  understood  in  this  passage  ; 
alledging  that  the  verb  from  which  it  comes,  signifies  to  hold 
up  the  hand  as  in  voting.  The  word,  however,  is  defined  by 
14* 


]58  PRESBYTERS  ELECTED  BY  THE  PEOPLE, 

Professor  Robinson,*  to  choose  hy  vote,  to  appoint ;  and  as  the 
connection  will  not  allow  us  to  adopt  the  former,  we  will  sub- 
stitute the  latter  word  for  ordaining.  The  account  will  then 
read,  "  confirming  the  souls  of  the  disciples,  exhorting  them 
[the  disciples]  to  continue  in  the  faith,  appointing  Presbyters 
for  them  [the  disciples]  in  every  Church,  having  prayed  with 
fasting."  The  appointment  was,  therefore,  made  by  the 
Apostles,  with  prayer  and  fasting. 

It  is  worthy  of  remark,  the  same  word  is  used  in  the  sub- 
scriptions to  the  epistle  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  supposed  to 
have  been  added  about  the  third  or  fourth  century,  when  there 
could  be  no  doubt  that  it  signified  ordination  by  a  Bishop,  and 
that  it  is  used  in  the  same  sense  in  the  Greek  Church  to  the 
present  day.f 

We  are  willing  to  grant,  though  the  narrative  does  not  re- 
quire it,  that  the  people  probably  took  some  part  in  the  selec- 
tion of  the  persons  appointed  to  the  office  of  Presbyters. 
Indeed,  we  believe  the  accounts  in  other  places  authorize  us 
to  infer,  that  the  people  selected  from  among  themselves  per- 
sons to  whose  unblemished  and  Christian  character,  as  well 
as  to  their  fitness  for  the  office,  they  could  bear  honorable  and 
strong  testimony,  and  that  the  Apostles  appointed  or  ordained 
such  to  the  office  of  Deacons,  and  subsequently,  upon 
receiving  another  testimonial,  to  the  office  of  Presbyter. 
Whether  this  selection  by  the  people  was  made  by  the  holding 
up  of  hands,  as  is  done  in  voting,  or  by  some  other  means, 
the  narrative  furnishes  no  information,  nor  do  we  consider  it 
of  any  importance. 

This  conclusion  is  sustained  by  the  testimony  of  the  ear- 
liest Fathers.  Clement,  of  Rome,  about  A.  D.  83,  speaks  of 
ministers  appointed  by  the  Apostles  and  their  successors, 
"  with  the   consent  of  the   whole  Church."^     That  is,  the 

*  Gr.  Lex.  893.  f  Suicer,  in  verbo.  4;  Ep.  Cor.  c.  44. 


IN  THE  PRIMITIVE  CHURCH.  159 

whole  Church  knowing  of,  and  consenting  to  the  appointmentj 
and  thus  bearing  testimony  to  the  fitness  of  the  persons  ap- 
pointed. This  practice  continued  for  a  long  time,  and  is 
mentioned  by  many  writers.  Cornelius,  Bishop  of  Rome, 
in  his  epistle  to  Fabius,  Bishop  of  Antioch,  alludes  to  the 
same  custom.* 

Origen,  about  230,  speaking  of  the  ordination  of  a  Bishop, 
says  :  "  The  presence  of  the  people  is  necessary  in  the  ordi- 
nation of  a  Bishop,  that  all  may  know,  and  be  assured  that  he 
who  is  chosen  to  that  office,  is  distinguished  among  the  peo- 
ple, for  his  pre-eminence  in  learning  and  holiness,  and  a  vir- 
tuous life ;  and  this  is  done  in  the  presence  of  the  people,  that 
there  may  be  no  room  for  mistake  or  objection.^  So  also  in  his 
last  book  against  Celsus,  he  says,  that  "  rulers  of  the  Church 
are  chosen  to  their  office  by  those  over  whom  they  rule. "J 

Cyprian,  about  250,  says  :  "  In  compliance  with  divine  tra- 
dition and  Apostolical  usage,  the  custom  should  be  diligently 
observed  and  maintained,  which  is  established  among  us,  and 
in  almost  all  other  provinces,  that  for  the  due  celebration  of 
ordinations,  the  Bishops  of  all  the  adjoining  provinces  are  to 
repair  to  the  people,  over  whom  a  Bishop  is  to  be  ordained ; 
and  then  a  Bishop  shall  be  chosen,  in  the  presence  of  the  peo- 
ple, who  have  had  the  fullest  knowledge  of  the  life  of  each 
one,  and  been  thoroughly  acquainted  with  their  manners,  and 
whole  conversation."^ 

In  another  place,  he  speaks  of  Cornelius  as  having  been 
made  Bishop,  "  by  the  testimony  of  the  clergy,  and  the  suf- 
frage of  the  people  present. "1|  And  again,  "  That  ordination 
is  just  and  lawful,  which  shall  have  been  determined  by  the 
suffrage  and  sentence  of  all."^ 

Later  writers  also  testify  to  the  existence  of  the  same  cus- 

*Ai)ud.  Euseb.  vi.  43.  f  Horn.  G.  Levit.  ^^Ad  Finem. 

§  Ep.  78.  II  Ep.  52,  or  55.  IT  Ep.  67,  or  68. 


160        PRESBYTERS  ELECTED  BY  THE  PEOPLE. 

torn  in  their  times.  Thus,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  370,  says, 
that  Athanasius  was  "  elected  by  the  suffrage  of  all  the  peo- 
ple."* Ambrose,  374,  says  the  election  is  by  the  whole 
Church.f  Again,  "Ye  are  my  fathers  who  chose  me  to  be 
Bishop."t  Jerome,  378,  "  The  Watchman  of  the  Church, 
either  a  Bishop  or  Presbyter,  who  was  chosen  by  the  peo- 
ple."^ And  so  late  as  440,  Leo  the  Great  lays  it  down  as  a 
standing  rule  of  the  Church,  that  "  He  who  is  to  preside  over 
all,  should  be  chosen  by  all."|| 

The  right  and  duty  of  the  people  to  elect  their  clergy,  and 
of  the  Bishops  to  ordain  them,  was  distinctly  recognized  by 
all  the  early  Councils,  among  which  we  may  mention  that  of 
Nice,  325;  Antioch,  341  ;  Alexandria,  361;  Carthage,  397 
and  399  ;  Chalcedon,  451  ;  Aries,  452  ;  Barcelona,  599  ;  To- 
ledo, 633  ;  Constantinople,  680,  etc. 

This  language,  in  most  instances,  was  used  in  reference  to 
Bishops,  but  it  is  evident  from  many  circumstances,  that  what 
was  done  by  the  Church  of  a  Diocese,  at  the  ordination  of  a 
Bishop,  was  done  by  a  particular  congregation,  at  the  ordina- 
tion of  Presbyters  and  Deacons. 

8.  He  must  have  been  a  Deacon,  and  have  acquitted  himself 
honorably  in  that  station.  There  is  no  positive  statement  in 
Scripture,  that  this  was  the  fact ;  but  there  is  a  direct  allusion 
to  the  existence  of  such  a  custom  in  Paul's  epistle  to  Timo- 
thy. "  They  that  have  used  the  office  of  a  Deacon  well,  pur- 
chase to  themselves  a  good  degree,  and  great  boldness  in  the 
faith  which  is  in  Jesus  Christ."     (1  Tim.  iii.  13.) 

The  language  in  which  the  common  version  presents  this 
text  to  the  reader,  renders  it  difficult  to  say  what  was  intended 
by  the  Apostle  ;  but  a  more  literal  translation  will  remove 
much  of  the  doubt  and  uncertainty.     "  They  that  fill  the  office 

*  Oral.  21.  t  Ep.  82.  :J:Gom.  Luc.  L.  8,  c.  1. 

§Com.  Ez.  Ix.  c.  33.  ||  Ep.  84. 


MANNER  OF  MAKING  PRESBYTERS.  161 

of  a  Deacon,  (or  fulfill  the  duties  of  a  Deacon,)  faithfully, 
shall  acquire  for  themselves  an  excellent  degree,  (or  step  of 
dignity ;)  and  great  authority,  (or  license,)  in  the  faith  which 
is  in  Christ  Jesus."*  We  think  this  language  most  evi- 
dently implies,  that  he  who  has  filled  the  office  of  a  Deacon 
well,  should  be  promoted  to  an  office  of  a  higher  grade,  where 
he  should  have  greater  license  or  authority  to  preach  and  pro- 
claim the  faith  or  gospel  of  Christ  Jesus. 

Of  the  manner  of  making  Bishops  or  Presbyters. 

1.  He  must  have  been  examined  and  tried  by  an  Apostle, 
and  found  to  possess  the  requisite  qualifications.  Paul,  after 
enumerating  the  principg-l  qualifications  of  a  Deacon,  adds  : 
"let  these  also  first  be  proved."  (1  Tim.  iii.  10.)  The  lan- 
guage of  the  Apostle,  [kai  outoi  de,)  ^^  and  these  «/60,  being  first 
proved,"  implies,  that  this  trial  or  proof  was  not  applicable  to 
Deacons  alone,  but  to  them  in  addition'\  to  others,  which  here 
can  signify  nothing  but  Bishops,  of  whom  he  had  just  been 
speaking.  In  what  manner  this  trial  or  examination  was 
conducted,  the  Scripture  furnishes  no  means  of  determining; 
but  that  the  Apostles  considered  something  of  the  kind  neces- 
sary to  prevent  the  introduction  of  improper  persons  into  the 
ministry,  is  sufficiently  evident. 

We  may,  however,  obtain  some  light  on  this  subject,  by 
reference  to  the  practice  of  those  times.  The  word  used  by 
the  Apostles,  in  this  place,  is  dokimazo,  to  prove,  to  try, 
which  is  used  to  signify,  to  make  trial  of  to  put  to  the  proof 
to  examine  ;\  and  the  noun  dokimasia,  derived  from  this  verb, 
denotes  a  trial,  or  examination.  In  this  sense,  it  was  used 
technically  by  the  Greeks,  and  no  man  could  be  admitted  to  a 
seat  in  the  Senate  of  Five  Hundred,  until  he  had  been  proved, 
had  undergone  a  strict  dokimasia,  as  to  his  life,  conduct,  and 

*  Rob.  123,  650,  631.  f  R"b.  406. 

j.  Lys.  Oral.  Evander,  .^scLin  Contra  Tim.  Arch.  Graeca,  32. 


162  PRESBYTERS  ORDAINED   BY  AN  APOSTLE. 

qualifications,  and  shown  himself  fit  and  competent  for  the 
station.*  Candidates  for  many  other  oflices  werf  obliged  to 
go  through  the  same  examination,  whence  dokimasia  was  used 
to  signify  such  an  examination.  This  examination,  or  doki- 
masia, took  place  in  the  forum,  before  the  Heliastae,  one  of  the 
most  celebrated  of  the  Athenian  Courts.  To  a  Greek  of  those 
days,  the  language  of  the  Apostle  would  convey  the  same 
idea  as  that  signified  by  our  phrase,  "  the  examination  of  a 
candidate."  We  think,  therefore,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
in  the  x\postolic  Church,  both  Presbyters  and  Deacons  were 
to  be  examined  by  the  Apostles,  or  those  to  whom  they  had 
committed  Apostolic  authority  before  ordination. 

2.  Must  be  ordained  by  an  Apostle.  The  similarity  be- 
tween the  qualification  required  of  Bishops  and  Deacons,  and 
the  manner  of  making  them,  would  lead  us,  without  further 
proof,  to  infer  that  Bishops  must  be  ordained,  as  well  as  Dea- 
cons. But  we  are  not  left  to  make  this  out  by  inference. 
Titus,  whom  Paul  called  an  Apostle,  {Apostoloi, — English 
version,  messengers,  literally.  Apostles,  2  Cor.  viii.  23,)  was 
left  at  Crete,  "  that  he  should  ordain  Presbyters  in  every 
city."  (i.  5.)  So  Timothy,  who  was  also  an  Apostle,t  was 
directed  "  to  lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man.''''  (1  Tim.  v.  23.) 
If  in  connection  with  the  fact,  that  Timothy  himself  was  or- 
dained by  the  laying  on  of  an  Apostle's  hands,  (2  Tim.  iii.  6,) 
we  consider  the  particular  direction  given  him  concerning  the 
necessary  qualifications  of  Bishops  and  Deacons  ;  we  can 
not  doubt  that  the  "  laying  on  of  hands,"  (1  Tim.  v.  23,)  was 
an  ordination.  The  same  is  also  asserted  in  Acts  xiv.  23. 
"  The  Apostles  ordained  Elders  [Presbyters]  in  every  Church." 

The  language  of  Clement,  of  Rome,  is  decisive  on  this 


*  Rob.  Gr.  Antiq. 

tCompare2  Cor.  i.    1—8,23.     Phil.  i.    1.     Col.  i.    1.     1   Thess.   i.   1. 
2  Thess.  i.   10. 


POWER  AND  DUTIES  OF  PRESBYTERS.  163 

point.  "  Our  Apostles  knew  from  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that 
contentions  should  arise  on  account  of  the  ministerial  office. 
And  therefore,  having  a  perfect  knowledge  of  this,  they 
appointed  persons,  as  we  have  before  said,  and  then  gave 
direction  in  what  manner,  when  they  should  die,  other  ap- 
proved men  should  succeed  in  their  ministry."* 

We  have,  therefore,  the  authority  of  an  associate  and  par- 
ticular friend  of  St.  Paul,  and  a  fellow  laborer  with  him,  for 
declaring,  that  the  ministerial  office  was  constituted  and  ap- 
pointed by  God  ;  that  the  Apostles,  in  consequence  of  reve- 
lations made  to  them,  appointed  men  to  the  ministerial 
office  ;  and  also,  that  the  Apostles  gave  direction  about  their 
successors. 

Of  the  power  and  duties  of  Preshyter-hishops. 

1..  To  teach  and  instruct  the  people  by  preaching  the  gos- 
pel. One  of  the  qualifications  of  a  Bishop  enumerated  by  the 
Apostle,  was,  "  he  must  be  able  to  teach  and  instruct  others ;" 
from  whence  we  must  conclude,  that  one  duty  of  a  Presbyter- 
bishop  was  to  teach  and  instruct;  or,  to  preach.  The  same 
is  implied  in  Paul's  charge  to  the  Presbyters  (Acts  xx.  17) 
of  Ephesus.  "  Take  heed,  therefore,  to  feed  the  Church  of 
God^^  [poimainein,  "  to  feed,  i.  e.  to  lead,  to  cherish,  to  pro- 
vide for,^'''\  which  implies  instruction,  teaching,  preaching.) 
The  same  language  is  used  by  Peter,  in  reference  to  the  same 
subject.  (1  Pet.  v.  2.)  A  Bishop  would  also  possess  this 
authority  as  a  Deacon,  though  raised  to  a  higher  rank  or  grade 
in  the  ministry  ;  the  power  of  the  latter  being  included  in  the 
former ;  even  as  the  power  of  an  Apostle  included  that  of 
both  Presbyters  and  Deacons.  Thus  Peter,  who  was  an 
Apostle,  calls  himself  a  Presbyter,  (1  Pet.  v.  1,)  and  Paul  and 
Apollos,  who  were  both  Apostles,  are  called  Deacons.  (1  Cor. 
iii.  6.) 

*  Ep.  Cor.  c.  44.  t  Rob.  G83. 


164         POWER  AND  DUTIES  OF  PRESBYTERS. 

2.  To  rule  in  the  Church.  "  Let  the  Presbyters  that  rule 
well,  be  counted  worthy  of  double  honor."  (1  Tim.  v.  17.) 
The  same  doctrine  is  also  taught  in  1  Timothy  iii.  4,  5.  "  A 
Bishop  must  rule  his  own  house  well,  lest  he  know  not  how 
to  take  care  of  the  Church  of  God."  The  language  of  Peter 
implies  the  same  thing.  "  I  exhort  the  Presbyters  to  take  the 
oversight,  not  as  lords,"  that  is,  not  to  rule  with  severity. 
(1  Pet.  V.  1—3.) 

3.  To  administer  the  sacraments.  This  is  also  included  in 
the  command,  to  feed  "  the  Church,"  (Acts  xxvi.  ]  8  ;  1  Pet. 
V.  2  ;)  for  as  it  was  the  business  of  an  earthly  shepherd  to  feed 
his  flock;  that  is,  to  see  that  all  their  wants  were  supplied  ; 
so  it  is  the  duty  of  a  spiritual  shepherd  and  pastor,  to  take 
care  that  the  spiritual  necessities  of  his  flock — ^^  the  Church 
of  God'^ — are  supplied.  In  doing  this,  he  must  of  necessity 
administer  to  them  all  these  ordinances  which  Christ  had 
ordained  to  be  from  time  to  time,  their  spiritual  food  and  sus- 
tenance, and  the  means  of  their  spiritual  edification.  That 
this  includes  the  administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  no  one 
can  doubt,  that  carefully  considers  the  account  given  of  it  by 
Paul,  in  1  Corinthians  xi.  The  Presbyter  would  also  pos- 
sess power  and  authority  to  baptize,  by  virtue  of  having  been 
a  Deacon ;  the  Bishop  not  only  having  the  same  power,  but 
"  greater  license  and  authority"  than  the  Deacon.  But  he 
would  derive  authority  to  do  these  from  the  Apostles  or 
their  successors  ;  authority  to  consecrate  the  elements  in  the 
Eucharist  having  been  originally  given  only  to  the  twelve. 
This  power  was  granted  at  the  time  of  its  institution,  but  did 
not  take  effect  until  after  the  crucifixion.  Thus,  at  the  time 
of  the  celebration  of  the  last  Supper,  Jesus  said  to  his  Apos- 
tles, "  I  appoint  you  a  kingdom,  as  my  father  hath  appointed 
unto  me,  that  (or,  iri  order  that)  yc  may  eat  and  drink  at  my 
table,  in  my  kingdom."  (Luke  xxii.  29,  30.)  The  language 
here  made  use  of,  makes  evident  allusion  to  bequest,  as  the 


CONSECRATION  OF   THE    EUCHARIST.  165 

word  frequently  signifies,*  and  is  tantamount  to  saying,  I  make 
over,  or  appoint  to  you,  as  by  bequest,  the  kingdom  I  have  re- 
ceived from  my  father.  And  the  reason  given  is,  in  order  that 
they  might  be  able  to  eat  and  drink  at  that  table  M^hich  he  had 
spread  ;  that  is,  might  have  power  and  authority  to  consecrate 
and  set  apart  the  elements  of  bread  and  wine,  so  that  they 
should  become  sacramentally  his  body  and  blood,  as  he  him- 
self had  declared  them  to  be.  (Matt.  xxvi.  26,  28 ;  Mark 
xiv.  22,  24  ;   Luke  xxii.  19,  20  ;   1  Cor.  xi.  24,  25.) 

In  consequence  of  the  authority  to  consecrate  the  Eucha^ 
rist  being  derived  from  the  Bishop,  it  has  been  held  from  the 
days  of  the  Apostles,  not  to  be  lawful  to  celebrate  it  without 
the  Bishop's  consent.!  The  oldest  Canon,  or  Liturgy,  for  the 
administration  of  the  Communion,  in  which  w'e  know  the  pre- 
cise words  made  use  of,  belongs  to  the  fourth  century.  We 
have,  however,  the  substance  of  several  others,  still  earlier. 
The  words  of  consecration,  as  they  stood  in  the  Clementine 
Liturgy,  about  A.  D.  400,  were  as  follows  : 

"  For  in  the  night  in  which  he  was  betrayed,  taking  bread 
into  his  holy  and  immaculate  hands,  and  looking  up  to  Thee, 
His  God  and  Father,  he  break  it  and  gave  it  to  his  disciples, 
saying:  This  is  the  mystery  of  the  New  Testament;  take, 
eat,  this  is  my  body,  which  is  broken  for  many,  for  the  remis* 
sion  of  sins.  Likewise,  also,  having  mingled  the  cup  with 
wine  and  water,  he  blessed  it,  and  gave  it  to  his  disciples, 
saying :  Drink  ye  all  of  it ;  this  is  my  blood  which  is  shed 
for  many,  for  the  remission  of  sins.  Do  this  in  remembrance 
of  me,  for  as  oft  as  ye  eat  this  bread  and  drink  thiaf'cup,  ye 
do  show  forth  my  death  until  I  come."^ 

The  words  of  consecration  in   the   Liturgy  of  St.  James, 


*Comp.  Heb.  ix.  16,  17. 

tl§n.  Ep.  Smyrn.  c.  11.     Bing.  B.  xi.  c.  3,  $  3. 

J-Apos.  Const,  viii.  c.  12. 

15 


166  WORDS  OF  CONSECRATION  IN 

the  very  words  of  which  we  know  to  be  as  old  as  450,  the 
substance  of  it  as  ancient  as  300,  and  the  order  as  early  as 
150,  are  as  follows  : 

"  In  the  same  night  that  he  was  offered,  or  rather  offered 
up  himself  for  the  life  and  salvation  of  the  world  ;  taking 
bread  into  his  holy,  immaculate,  pure,  and  immortal  hands, 
looking  up  to  heaven,  and  presenting  it  to  Thee,  His  God 
and  Father,  he  gave  thanks,  blessed  and  brake  it,  and  gave  it 
to  his  disciples  and  Apostles,  saying :  Take,  eat,  this  is  my 
body,  which  is  broken  and  given  for  you,  for  the  remission  of 
sins.  Likewise  after  supper  he  took  the  cup,  and  mixed  it 
with  wine  and  water,  and  looking  up  to  heaven  and  present- 
ing it  to  Thee,  His  God  and  Father,  he  gave  thanks,  sancti- 
fied, blessed  it,  and  filled  it  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  gave 
it  to  his  disciples,  saying  :  Drink  ye  all  of  it  ;  this  is  my 
blood  of  the  New  Testament,  which  is  shed  and  given  for 
you,  and  for  many,  for  the  remission  of  sins.  Do  this  in  re- 
membrance of  me  ;  for  as  oft  as  ye  eat  this  bread  and  drink 
this  cup,  ye  do  show  forth  the  death  of  the  Son  of  Man,  and 
confess  his  resurrection,  until  his  coming  again."* 

The  Liturgy  of  St.  Basil,  arranged  about  370,  and  the 
Liturgy  of  St.  Chrysostom,  arranged  381,  were  both  based 
upon  the  Liturgy  of  St.  James,  and  agree  with  the  forego- 
ing in  every  thing  but  some  slight  verbal  alterations. 

The  words  of  consecration  in  the  Liturgy  of  St.  Mark,  as 
they  stood  451,  and  the  substance  and  order  of  which  is 
known  to  have  existed  before  330,  are  as  follows  : 

"  For  in  the  same  night  wherein  he  delivered  himself  for 
our  sins,  and  was  about  to  suffer  death  for  mankind,  sitting 
down  to  supper  with  his  disciples,  he  took  bread  in  his  holy, 
spotless,  and  undefiled  hands,  and  looking  up  to  Thee,  His  Fa- 
ther, but  our  God,  and  the  God  of  all,  he   gave  thanks,  he 

♦Brett.  Col.  Lit.  p.  16,  from  Biblioth.  Patr.  T.  IT. 


THE  ANCIENT  LITURGIES.  167 

blessed,  he  sanctified,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  it  to  them,  say- 
ing :  This  is  my  body  which  is  broken  and  given  for  the  re- 
mission of  sins.  In  like  manner  he  took  the  cup  after  sup- 
per, and  mixing  it  with  wine  and  water,  and  looking  up  to 
heaven,  to  Thee,  His  Father,  but  our  God,  and  the  God  of 
all,  he  gave  thanks,  he  blessed  it,  and  filled  it  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  gave  it  to  his  holy  and  blessed  disciples,  saying: 
Drink  ye  all  of  this,  for  this  is  my  blood  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, which  is  shed  and  given  for  you,  and  for  many  for  the 
remission  of  sins  ;  do  this  in  remembrance  of  me,  for  as  oft 
as  ye  shall  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  show  forth 
my  death,  and  confess  my  resurrection  and  ascension  until  my 
coming  again."* 

The  Ethiopian  Liturgy^  which  was  drawn  from  that  of  St. 
Mark,  about  330,  agrees  with  it  in  all  important  particulars, 
but  abridges  the  language  somewhat. 

The  language  of  the  Ro?nan  Liturgy  is  peculiar  in  some 
points.     In  1647  it  stood  thus  : 

"  The  day  before  he  suffered,  took  bread  into  his  holy  and 
venerable  hands,  and  lifting  up  his  eyes  to  heaven,  to  Thee, 
His  God,  and  Father  Almighty,  giving  thanks  to  Thee,  he 
blessed  it,  brake  it,  and  gave  it  to  his  disciples,  saying  : 
Take  and  eat  ye  all  of  this,  for  this  is  my  body.  In  like 
manner,  after  he  had  supped,  taking  also  this  glorious  cup  into 
his  holy  and  venerable  hands,  giving  thanks  likewise  unto 
Thee,  he  blessed  it  and  gave  it  unto  his  disciples,  saying : 
Take  and  drink  ye  all  of  it,  for  this  is  the  cup  of  my  blood 
of  the  New  and  Eternal  Testament ;  the  mystery  of  faith ; 
which  shall  be  shed  for  you,  and  for  many,  for  the  remission 
of  sins.  As  oft  as  ye  shall  do  these  things,  ye  shall  do  them 
in  remembrance  of  me.""j" 


*  Brett.  Col.  Lit.  pp.  36,  37,  from  Renaudot,  Lit.  Orient.  Call.  Tom.  L 
t  Brett.  Coll.  Lit.  123,  124. 


168  POWER  AND  DUTY  OF  PRESBYTER-BISHOPS. 

We  have  given  this  last,  in  order  to  show,  that  the  modern 
notion  of  transubstantiation,  so  clearly  alluded  to  in  the  mod- 
ern Roman  Canon,  is  wanting  in  all  the  Ancient  Liturgies. 

4.  To  watch  over  and  inspect  the  conduct  of  the  members 
of  the  Church  where  they  were  placed.  The  etymology  of 
the  word  Episcopos,  rendered  Bishop,  signifies  literally,  "  an 
overseer  or  inspector  ;"*  and  we  should  therefore  infer,  that 
part  of  the  duty  of  a  Bishop  was  to  take  the  oversight.  But 
this,  though  not  conclusive  cAddence  of  the  fact,  is  strength- 
ened by  the  direction  of  Paul  to  the  Presbyters  of  Ephesus. 
"  After  my  departure,  grievous  wolves  shall  enter  in  among 
you,  not  sparing  the  flock.  Also  of  your  own  selves  shall 
men  arise,  speaking  perverse  things,  to  draw  away  disciples. 
Therefore  WATCH.^'  (Acts  xx.  29,  3Q,  31.)  So  Peter  "  ex- 
horts the  Presbyters  to  take  the  oversight,  (ppiskopountes, 
'  look  after y  see  to,  take  care  of^)*  the  flock  of  God."  (1  Pet. 
v.  2.)  Paul,  also,  to  the  Hebrews  directs  them  to  "obey 
them  that  have  the  rule  over  you,  for  they  watch  for  souls." 
(Heb.  xiii.  17.) 

5.  To  sit  in  council  with  the  Apostles  at  the  formation  of 
new  canons,  for  the  government  of  the  churches,  and  to  as- 
sent to  such  as  were  made.  The  only  account  of  an  occur- 
rence of  this  kind  in  the  Apostolic  Church,  is  contained  in  the 
fifteenth  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  on  the  exciting 
and  important  question,  whether  the  Gentile  converts  should  he 
required  to  receive  the  Jewish  rite  of  circumcision. 

The  difficulties  attending  this  question  were  then  consid- 
ered so  great,  that  Paul  and  Barnabas,  with  certain  brethren 
at  Antioch,  were  sent  up  to  Jerusalem,  to  obtain  a  "  decree''^ 
of  "  the  Apostles  and  elders  on  the  subject."  (Acts  xiv.  26  ; 
XV.  2  ;  xvi.  4.)  On  their  arrival  at  Jerusalem,  "  the  Apostles 
and  Presbyters   came  together  to  consider   of  the    matter." 

*  Hob.  315.  fKob.  314. 


APOSTLES APOSTOLIC  BISHOPS. 


im 


Here  was  much  debate,  as  would  seem,  among  the  elders, 
before  the  Apostles  delivered  their  opinions ;  when  Peter, 
and  after  him  Paul  and  Barnabas,  took  part  in  the  discussion; 
and  when  they  had  finished,  James  declared  sentence.  This 
sentence,  judgment  or  decree  of  James,  was  approved  by  the 
Apostles  and  elders.  (Acts  xv.  22,  23,  and  xvi.  4.)  That 
the  elders  took  part  in  the  debate,  seems  necessarily  to  re- 
sult from  the  facts  ;  that  there  is  no  mention  of  the  presence 
of  any  of  the  Apostles  except  those  just  named  ;  and  no  inti- 
mation that  any  thing  was  offered  by  them  before  the  speech 
of  Peter.  That  their  assent  was  given  to  the  decree,  we  have 
already  shown,  when  speaking  of  the  part  borne  by  the 
people  in  this  transaction. 

6.  The  Presbyter-bishops  owed  obedience  to  the  com- 
mands of  an  Apostle.  If  the  Apostles  exercised  authority 
over  the  Presbyters,  it  follows  that  they  had  a  right  so  to  do  ; 
and  if  they  had  a  right  to  exercise  such  power,  then  it  was 
the  duty  of  those  over  whom  the  power  was  exercised,  to 
obey.  But  an  examination  of  this  point  belongs  to  another 
place — a  consideration  of  the  power  of  an  Apostle — to  which 
the  reader  is  therefore  referred. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

APOSTLES APOSTOLIC  BISHOPS. 

We  come  now  to  speak  of  the  third  and  last  class  of  per- 
sons, who  were  ministers  and  officers  in  the  Apostolic  Church, 
that  is,  who  possessed  executive^  judicial,  and,  in  conjunction 
with  others,  legislative  powers  in  particular  Churches.  It  is 
not  to  be  concealed  that  there  is  among  Christians  at  this  day, 
great  differences  of  opinion  on  this  point,  nor,  that  it  has  ex- 
15* 


170  IMPORTANCE  OF  THE  QUESTION. 

cited  much  angry  and  bitter  controversy,  all  of  which  it  is 
our  wish  to  avoid,  and  to  treat  the  question  as  one  of  mere 
history.  Yet  we  aught  to  remark,  that  this  question  is  inter- 
esting, important,  and  fundamental ;  but  we  hope  to  be  able  to 
show,  that  it  is  not  difficult  to  decide  it.  We  say  that  the 
question  is  fundamental^  because,  if  the  Apostles  were  not 
officers,  but  ministers  at  large,  then  there  were  but  two  orders 
of  official  ministers  in  the  Apostolic  Church.  If,  on  the  con- 
trary, they  had  official  authority  in  particular  Churches,  and 
that  in  a  degree  superior  to  either  Presbyters  or  Deacons,  then 
there  were  three  orders  of  official  ministers  in  the  Apos- 
tolic Church. 

This  part  of  our  subject,  therefore,  involves  two  questions  : 
first,  were  the  Apostles  officers?  And,  second,  if  officers,  did 
they  possess  authority  superior  to  Presbyters  ?  These  ques- 
tions must  be  examined  and  decided  in  accordance  with  the 
rules  of  evidence  already  established,*  and  which  are  re- 
peated here,  that  they  may  be  the  more  strongly  borne  in 
mind. 

"  7.  A  name  designates  an  office  in  the  Church,  when 
some  person  to  whom  it  is  applied,  exercised  some  power  in 
the  Church  by  virtue  of  it. 

"  8.  The  nature  of  an  office  in  the  Church,  must  be  deter- 
mined by  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  power  ascribed  to  the 
office,  or  exercised  by  the  officer  filling  the  office. 

"  9.  The  grade  or  rank  of  an  officer  is  to  be  determined  by 
the  extent  of  the  power  appertaining  to  the  office,  or  exer- 
cised by  the  officer." 

If  then,  the  Apostles  exercised  executive,  judicial,  or  legis- 
lative authority  in  the  Church,  by  virtue  of  their  Apostleship, 
they  were  officers  in  the  Church ;  and  if  the  extent  of  power 
appertaining  to  the  Apostleship  was  superior  in  degree  to  that 

*  Ante.  p.  27. 


APOSTOLIC  COMMISSION.  171 

exercised  by  Presbyters,  or  if  the  Apostles  exercised  official 
authority  over  Presbyters,  then  were  the  Apostles  superior  to 
Presbyters,  and  the  Apostolic  Church  contained  three  orders 
of  officers  and  ministers. 

To  an  examination  of  these  questions,  our  attention  will 
now  be  directed.  But  we  are  not  here  left  to  make  out  by 
inference,  from  brief  ambiguous  references,  the  nature  of  the 
Apostolic  office,  for  we  have  the  APOSTOLIC  COMMIS- 
SION, in  which  they  received  their  authority  to  act  in  Christ's 
stead,  and  by  virtue  of  which  they  acted.    We  shall,  therefore, 

1.  Inquire  into  the  nature  of  that  commission,  and  the  ex- 
tent of  power  therein  granted. 

2.  Endeavor  to  ascertain  the  power  exercised  by  the  Apos- 
tles mider  that  commission. 

Of  the  Apostolic  Commission. 

This  commission,  which  is  generally  considered  as  dating 
from  the  appearance  of  Christ  to  the  eleven  after  his  resur- 
rection, as  collected  from  the  Evangelists  who  have  recorded 
it,  reads  as  follows  : 

"  Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  gospel  unto  every 
creature,  baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  teaching  them  to  observe 
all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you.  And  unto  you 
/  give  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  and  whatsoever  ye 
shall  bind  on  earth,  shall  be  bound  in  heaven  ;  and  whatsoever 
ye  shall  loose  on  earth,  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven ;  and  who- 
soever sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  him,  and  whoso- 
ever sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained ;  as  the  father  hath 
SENT  me,  even  so  SEND  I  YOU;  and  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway, 
even  unto  the  end  of  the  world."  (Matt.  xvi.  19;  xviii.  18; 
xxviii.  19,  20  ;  John  xx.  21,  23.) 

This  commission,  as  it  here  reads,  is  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant things  of  which  we  can  conceive,  and  yet  the  rule  of 
construction  furnished  by  the  Scriptures,  tends  rather  to  en- 


172  POWERS  GRANTED  IN  THE 

large  than  to  limit  the  powers  granted  in  it.  It  is  a  sound  rule 
of  evidence,  sanctioned  by  both  law  and  common  sense,  that 
when  one  instrument  contains  an  express  reference  to  another  in- 
strument,  for  further  description,  the  description  contained  in 
the  instrument  referred  to,  thereby  becomes  a  part  of  the  de- 
scription of  the  instrument  in  which  the  reference  is  contained. 
Now  the  phrase,  "  as  the  Father  has  sent  me,  even  so  send  I 
YOU,"  contains  an  explicit  reference  to  the  manner  in  which 
Christ  was  sent  by  the  Father,  accompanied  by  a  positive 
statement  that  the  Apostles  were  sent  in  like  manner.  The 
manner  in  which  Christ  was  sent  by  the  Father,  becomes 
descriptive,  therefore,  of  the  powers  granted  in  the  Apostolic 
commission,  and  hence  reference  to  that  must  be  had,  in  order 
to  ascertain  the  full  extent  of  the  powers  therein  delegated. 
This  point  must  therefore  first  engage  our  attention.  But  lest 
it  should  be  said  tha,t  we  over-estimate  the  authority  conferred 
upon  the  Apostles,  we  shall  first  show,  that  the  things  in- 
cluded in  the  phrase,  even  so,  had  most,  or  all  of  them,  actu- 
ally been  promised  before,  and  that  this  was,  therefore,  only 
a  renewal  of  previous  grants,  accompanied  by  an  enlarge- 
ment of  the  field  of  action.  The  powers  granted  in  this  com- 
mission, are, 

1 .  Of  preaching.  That  this  was  given  in  the  early  part  of 
their  Apostleship,  is  acknowledged  by  all,  and  a  simple  refer- 
ence to  the  gospel  history  will  be  suflicient.* 

2.  Of  baptizing.  We  are  told,  at  the  very  outset  of  our 
Saviour's  ministry,  that  the  "  Pharisees  heard  that  Jesus 
made  and  baptized  more  disciples  than  John  ;  though  himself 
baptized  not,  but  his  disciples."     (John  iv.  1,  2.) 

3.  The  power  of  the  keys ;  that  is,  of  admitting  to,  or  re- 
jecting from,  the  Church.f     "  Unto  you  I  WILL  give   the 


*Mall.  X.  7,  27;  xi.  5.    Mark  iii.  14;  vi.  12.    Luke  ix.  2,  6,  60;  xvi. 
16  ;  xxiv.  27. 
t  Rob.  445. 


APOSTOLIC  COMMISSION.  173 

keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven ;  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt 
bind  on  earth,  shall  be  bound  in  heaven  ;  and  v^^hatsoever  thou 
shalt  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven."  (Matt.  xvi. 
19.)  And  this  power,  which  was  first  promised  (not,  as  some 
erroneously  say,  given)  to  Peter,  was  shortly  after  promised 
to  all  of  the  twelve.     (Matt,  xviii.  18.) 

There  are  several  other  points  of  comparison  which  will 
be  seen  to  best  advantage  by  contrast.  Indeed,  without  bear- 
ing this  in  mind,  we  shall  hardly  feel  the  full  force  of  the 
language  made  use  of  in  this  commission. 

4.  Christ  was  set  apart  to  his  ministerial  office,  by  the 
Holy  Ghost  descending  upon  him,  (Matt.  iii.  16;)  and  he 
caused  the  Apostles  to  be  set  apart  in  like  manner.  (John  xx. 
22  ;  Acts  ii,  3,  4.) 

5.  He  had  a  kingdom  appointed  unto  him,  and  he  appointed 
one  to  his  Apostles,  in  like  manner.     (Luke  xxii.  29.) 

6.  Christ  had  power  to  forgive  sins,  (Matt.  ix.  2  ;  Mark 
ii.  5,  10,)  and  he  gave  authority  to  his  Apostles  to  absolve  and 
remit  the  sins  of  repenting  sinners  :  "  Whosoever  ye  shall 
loose  on  earth,  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven,"  (Matt,  xviii.  18,)* 
and  "  whosoever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  him." 
(John  XX.  23.)t 

7.  The  Father  committed  all  judgment  to  the  Son,  (John 
V.  22  ;)  and  at  the  time  he  instituted  the  sacrament  of  the 
Holy  Communion,  he  appointed  to  his  Apostles,  {diatithemai, 
made  over  or  committed  to  them,  as  by  devise  or  bequest,)  the 
kingdom  which  the  Father  had  appointed  or  committed  to 
him,  (Luke  xxii.  29  ;)|  (ina,)  in  order  that^  they  might  eat 
and  drink  at  his  table,  and   sit  on  thrones,  (the  emblems  of 

*  Rob.  176. 

fRob.  458,  andcomp.  MaU.   vi.   12,   14,  15;  ix.   2,  5,  6  ;    xii.  31,  33. 
Markii.  2,  5,  7,  9,  10;  iii.  28  ;  iv.  12;  xi.  31,32.    Rob.  119. 
4  Rob.  191 ;  comp.  ix.  16,  17.  §  Rob.  388, 


174  CONFERRING  APOSTOLIC  AUTHORITY. 

power,)*  judging  [in  a  judicial  sense)]  the  twelve  tribes  (or 
persons  composing  "  the  commonwealth)  of  Israel,"  (Eph.  ii. 
22  ;)  which  in  the  New  Testament  signifies  the  Church. 

8.  He  consecrated  bread  and  wine,  and  declared  them  to 
be  his  "  body  and  blood  ;"  or,  as  others  understand  the  lan- 
guage, "  made  them  the  authoritative  and  acknowledged  signs 
of  his  body  and  blood ;"  and  he  gave  his  Apostles  authority 
to  do  the  same.  (Matt.  xxvi.  26 — 30 ;  Mark  xiv.  22 — 26 ; 
Luke  xxii.  17—30  ;   1  Cor.  xi.  23—27.) 

There  are  several  other  points  in  which  the  conduct  of 
Christ  before,  and  of  the  Apostles  after  his  ascension,  were 
similar  ;  but  as  some  of  them  involve  questions  concerning 
the  extent  of  the  powers  of  an  Apostle,  we  shall  proceed  to 
inquire  how  the  Apostles  understood  the  commission  under 
which  they  acted ;  and  this  must  be  gathered  from  the  acts 
which  they  performed  under  that  commission.  These  must 
be  conclusive  evidence  concerning  the  meaning  of  their  com- 
mission  ;  for  as  they  were  inspired  men,  it  was  impossible 
that  they  could  be  mistaken  about  the  meaning  of  the  commis- 
sion under  which  they  acted,  or  the  extent  of  powers  granted 
by  it.  Hence,  whatever  they  did,  they  had  a  right  to  do ; 
and  what  they  had  a  right  to  do,  that  was  granted  to  them  in 
the  commission,  or  followed  by  force  of  the  phrase,  even  so. 
In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  then,  we  have  an  inspired  com- 
mentary upon  a  divine  commission. 

Of  the  powers  exercised  by  the  Apostles  under 
their  commission. 

1.  The  Apostles  alone  possessed  the  power  of  conferring 
Apostolic  authority  on  others. 

This  would  seem  to  be  a  natural,  if  not  a  necessary  infer- 
ence, from  the  tenor  of  their  commission,  and  that  Christ  in- 
tended that  they  should  do  this,  is  evident  from  the  language, 

*  Rob.  37G.    Malt.  xix.  28. 

t  Rob.  400.     Comp.  Matt.  xix.  28.     1  Cor.  v.  12  ;  vi.  2,  3. 


APOSTLESHIP  OF  TITUS TIMOTHY.  175 

"  lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world," 
which  could  not  be  true,  if  limited  to  them  personally.  Be- 
sides, it  would  be  downright  presumption,  and  at  war  with 
every  principle  of  common  sense,  to  assert  the  contrary  doc- 
trine. This  leads  us,  therefore,  to  inquire,  whether  the  Apos- 
tles ever  committed  this  authority  to  others.  We  have  already 
seen,  that  the  power  to  judge  in  the  Church,  was  exclusively 
an  Apostolic  right,  and  hence,  imparting  this  authority  to  oth- 
ers, is  evidence  of  a  transmission  of  Apostolic  authority. 

This  authority  was  conferred  on  Titus  by  Paul.  "  For  this 
cause,  /  left  thee  at  Crete,  that  thou  shouldst  set  in  order  the 
things  that  are  lacking,  (or  wanting,)*  and  ordain  Presbyters 
in  every  city."  (Titus  i.  5.)  All  antiquity  testifies  to  the 
fact,  that  Titus  was  ordained  Bishop  of  Crete,  by  St.  Paul. 
Thus  Eusebius,  out  of  the  records  of  the  Church,  tells  us, 
that  "  Titus  was  appointed  over  the  Churches  in  Crete,"t  and 
Chrysostom,!  and  Theodoret,^  Jerome, ||  and  the  Apostolical 
Constitutions,!"  tells  us  the  same  thing,  adding,  that  he  was 
ordained  by  St.  Paul. 

The  same  authority  was  also  conferred  upon  Timothy.  To 
Timothy  he  says,  "  the  things  that  thou  hast  heard  of  me 
among  many  witnesses,  do  thou  give  in  charge  {commit,  or  en- 
trust)** the  same  to  faithful  men,  who  shall  be  able  to  teach 
others  also,"  but  "  lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man."  (2  Tim. 
ii.  2  ;  1  Tim.  v.  22.)  Timothy,  also,  is  said  by  the  ancients 
to  have  been  ordained  by  St.  Paul,  the  first  Bishop  of  Ephe- 
sus,  which  many  say,  was  the  metropolitan  Church  of  Asia 
Minor.  Mention  is  made  of  this  by  Eusebius,tt  by  the  author 
of  the  Life  of  Timothy,  in  Photius ; JJ  and  the  Bishop  present 
at  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  was  the  twenty-seventh  in  de- 

*Rob.  478.  t"Ecc.  H.  iii.  4.  if  Horn.  Tit.  i.  1. 

§  Arg.  Ep.  ad  Tit.      ||  Cat.  Ecc.  Scrip.  IT  B.  vii.  c.  46. 

**Ilob.  624.  tt  Ecc.  H.  iii.  4.  ItBiblio.  No.  254. 


176  OTHER  APOSTLES  THAN  THE  TWELVE. 

scent  from  Timothy.*  The  same  thing  is  also  asserted  by 
Chrysostom,t  by  Theodoret,J  by  the  Apostolical  Constitu- 
tions,§  and  indeed,  by  all  ancient  historians. 

These  facts  furnish  conclusive  evidence,  that  Paul  gave 
Timothy  and  Titus  authority  to  ordain,  and  of  course  that  he 
committed  to  them  at  least  one  point  of  Apostolic  authority. 
There  is  also,  as  we  shall  show  under  the  proper  heads,  evi- 
dence that  Timothy  and  Titus  were  clothed  with  various  other 
functions  of  Apostolic  authority  ;  but  we  propose  now  to  show, 
that  both  are  called  Apostles.  That  there  were  other  Apos- 
tles beside  the  twelve,  is  conceded  by  all.  Thus  Matthias^ 
(Acts  i.  26,)  Paul,  and  Barnabas,  were  Apostles,  (Acts  xiv.  4, 
14,)  and  also  Andronicus  and  Junia,  (Rom.  xiv.  7,)||  were  Apos- 
tles, and  in  1  Corinthians  viii.  23,  the  term  Apostle  is  applied 
to  Titus  and  several  others  whose  names  are  not  mentioned.^f 
It  would  seem  also,  from  the  language  of  Paul  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians,  that  Timothy  was  called  an  Apostle.  We  learn  from 
1  Thessalonians,  that  both  Paul  and  Timothy  had  been  at 
Thessalonica,  and  the  epistle  is  addressed,  "  Paul  and  Sylva- 
nus  and  Timotheus  to  the  Church  of  the  Thessalonians," 
(i.  1,)  and  in  it  they  say,  (ii.  6,)  ^^  we  were  not  burdensome  to 
you  as  Apostles  of  Christ."  And  the  language  of  St.  Paul, 
in  2  Corinthians  (i.  1)  and  Colossians,  (i.  1,)  leads  to  the  same 
conclusion.  "  Paul,  an  Apostle,  and  Timothy,  our  brother." 
Now  the  word  owr,  used  in  the  English  version,  is  not  in  the 
original.  Hence,  a  literal  translation  would  be,  "  Paul,  an 
Apostle,  and  brother  Timothy."  The  question,  therefore,  is, 
in  what  sense  was  Timothy  brother  ?  Professor  Robinson 
renders  it,**  "  an  associate,  or  colleague  in  office  or  dignity. ^^ 
In  either  case,  Timothy  must  have  had  an  office  similar  to 
that  of  St.  Paul. 

»Coun.  Chal.  Act.  11.  fHora.  1  Tim.  iii.  1,  5,  9. 

If  Com.  1  Tim.  iii.  1.  $  B.  vii.  c.  4G.  ||  Rob.  91. 

IT  Rob.  91.  **Rob.  2G. 


APOSTLESHIP   OF   EPAPHRODITUS.  177 

Epaphroditus  is  also  called  the  Apostle  of  tlie  Philippians. 
(Phil.  ii.  25.)  The  verse,  according  to  the  English  version, 
reads  thus  : 

"  Epaphroditus,  my  brother  and  companion  in  labor,  and 
fellow-soldier,  but  your  messenger." 

The  word  here  rendered  messenger,  in  the  Greek,  is  apos- 
tolon,  the  word  usually  rendered  Apostle,  and  the  fact  of  the 
Apostleship  depends  upon  the  question  of  what  is  the  true 
rendering  of  the  word  in  this  place.  To  enable  our  readers 
to  form  their  own  opinion  upon  this  point,  we  give  the  follow- 
ing summary  of  the  arguments  by  which  the  question  must  be 
decided  : 

1.  The  Greek  word  Apostolos,  is  from  the  verb  apostello, 
to  send  away,  to  send  off,  to  send  forth,  to  send  out,  and  signi- 
fies, literally,  one  sent,  that  is,  a  messenger,  ambassador,*  &c. 

2.  In  this  sense,  and  in  a  higher  sense  also,  it  is  applied  to 
the  twelve,  chosen  to  be  messengers  of  Christ,  ambassadors  of 
the  Gospel,  and  Apostles,  in  the  sense  of  being  the  founders 
and  governors  of  the  Churches.  It  is  so  used  in  the  singular 
number,  in  a  great  variety  of  places,  for  which  see  the  refer- 
ences in  the  note.f  There  are,  in  a\\,  fifty  places  in  which  the 
word  denotes  an  Apostle,  in  the  highest,  and  in  a  technical 
sense. 


*  Synonymous  with  this  word,  or  nearly  so,  is  the  word  Angel,  employed 
ill  the  first  and  second  chapters  of  Revelations.  "  Angelas,  a  messenger, 
one  sent,"  &c.,  (Rob.  6,)  from  "  angelo,  to  bring  tidings,  or  a  message, 
to  do  the  office  of  an  envoy  or  messenger." — {Donnegan.) 

fRom.  i.  1;  xi.  13.  1  Cor.  i.  1  ;  ix.  12;  xv.  9.  2  Cor.  i.  1  ]  xii.  12. 
Gal.  i.  1.    Eph.  i.  1.    Col.  i.  1.    1  Tim.  i.  1  ;  ii.  7.    2  Tim.  i.  1,  11.    Til.  i. 

1  ;  and  in  the  same  sense  in  the  plural,  in  Matt.  x.  2.  Mark  vi.  3.  Luke 
vi.  13;  ix.  10;  xi.  49;  xvii.  5;  xxii.  14;  xxiv.  10.  Acts  i.  26;  ii.  43; 
IV.  35;  V.  18;  viii.  1.    Rom.  xvi.  7.     1   Cor.  iv.  9;  xii.  28,  29;  xv.  9. 

2  Cor.  xi.  5,  13;  xii.  11.  Gal.  i.  17,  19.  Eph.  iii.  5;  iv.  11.  1  Thess.  ii. 
6.    2  Pet.  iii.  2.    Jude  17.    Rev.  ii.  2  ;  xviii.  20. 

16 


178  APOSTLESHIP  OF  EPAPHRODITUS. 

3.  It  is  once  used  in  a  similar  sense,  and  applied  to  Christ 
himself.     (Heb.  iii.  1.) 

4.  In  three  other  places,  the  word  in  the  common  English 
version  is  rendered  differently. 

John  xiii.  16 — The  servant  is  not  greater  than  his  Lord, 
neither  he  that  is  sent,  {apostolos,)  greater  than  he  that  sent 
him. 

2  Cor.  viii.  23 — our  brethren,  the  messengers  [apostoloi]  of 
the  Churches. 

Phil.  ii.  25 — but  your  messenger,  (apostolon.) 

On  the  origin  and  authority  of  the  English  version,  the  fol- 
lovv^ing  remarks  should  be  made  ; — The  passage  in  John  (xiii. 
16)  was  rendered  by  Tyndal,  and  the  Bishop's  Bible,  "nei- 
ther the  messenger  greater  than  he  that  sent  him  ;"  by  Cover- 
dale,  "  neither  the  Apostle,^''  &c. ;  by  the  Genevan  translators, 
"neither  the  ambassador,^''  &c.  But  the  translators,  in  the 
time  of  King  James,  differed  from  all,  and  substituted,  "  nei- 
ther he  that  is  sent,^'  &c.  The  verse  in  2  Corinthians,  (viii. 
23,)  was  rendered  by  Tyndal,  the  Bishop's  Bible,  and  the 
Genevan  translators,  "  the  messengers  of  the  congregations  ;" 
but  Coverdale  rendered  it,  "  the  Apostles,^''  &c.  In  Philippi- 
ans,  (ii.  25,)  Tyndal,  Coverdale,  and  the  Bishop's  Bible, 
rendered  Apostolos,  by  Apostle ;  while  the  translation  made 
at  Geneva,  under  the  eye  of  Calvin,  substituted  "  your  mes- 
senger,^' and  in  this,  they  were  followed  by  King  James' 
translators.  As  far,  therefore,  as  any  argument  can  be  found- 
ed on  the  agreement  of  the  English  versions,  it  is  decidedly 
in  favor  of  the  Apostleship  of  Epaphroditus.  We  see,  also, 
from  these  remarks,  that  the  present  rendering  had  its  origin 
among  the  Genevans,  whose  system  of  Church  government  it 
would  contradict,  if  not  destroy,  if  otherwise  translated.  We 
may  also  add,  that  Luther  translated  this  word  Apostle,  in  all 
three  of  the  above  mentioned  places,  and  that  there  is  not  a 
single  version  of  the  Scriptures,  to  our  knowledge,  that  does 


APOSTLESHIP  OF  EPAPHRODITUS.  179 

not  render  the  word  Apostle,  in  Philippians,  (ii,  25,)  except 
those  that  have  followed  the  Genevan. 

But  the  real  question  relates  rather  to  the  authority,  than  to 
the  origin  of  this  version  ;  though  the  origin  may  be  of  use 
in  enabling  us  to  determine  the  weight  to  be  given  to  it.  In 
reference,  then,  to  the  authority  of  the  English  version,  as  far 
as  any  argument  can  be  drawn  from  the  use  of  the  word  in  the 
New  Testament,  it  is  against  it.  The  word  Apostolos,  we 
have  seen,  is  used  in  fifty-four  places,  and  in  fifty-one  of 
them,  is  rendered  Apostle.  In  order,  therefore,  to  justify  a 
different  translation,  it  must  clearly  appear  from  the  senae,  that 
an  Apostle,  in  his  official  character,  could  not  have  been  meant. 
That  Epaphroditus  was  a  messenger  and  ambassador  from  the 
Church  of  Philippi,  every  one  allows.  The  narrative  deter- 
mines that,  without  the  word  under  consideration.  Hence, 
there  was  no  need  of  repeating  it.  By  an  examination  of  the 
narrative,  we  shall  find  the  following  circumstances  in  favor 
of  the  Apostleship  of  Epaphroditus  : 

(1.)  Notwithstanding  the  high  eminence  of  the  Apostle  Paul 
in  the  Church,  on  account  of  his  distinguished  piety  and  gifts, 
and  notwithstanding  the  near  relation  he  bore  to  the  Church 
at  Philippi,  both  in  the  character  of  Apostle  to  the  Gen- 
tiles, and  as  the  herald  of  the  gospel  to  the  Church  in  Phi- 
lippi; he  supposed  it  more  necessary  to  send  Epaphroditus  to 
them,  than  to  send  his  tried  and  beloved  son  Timothy,  or  more 
necessary,  even,  than  to  go  himself.  "  I  trust  in  the  Lord 
Jesus,  to  send  Timotheus  shortly  unto  you  ;  yea,  that  I  shall 
myself  come  shortly  unto  you.  Yet  I  supposed  it  necessary* 
to  send  you  Epaphroditus,  my  brother  and  companion  in  labor, 
and  fellow-soldier,  but  your  apostle,  and  the  minister  to  my 
wants.^^i  The  relation  which  Epaphroditus  bore  towards  the 
Apostle,  was  that  of  a  "  brother  and  companion  in  labor,  and 

*  Rob.  45.  t  Phil.  ii.  19,  24,  25.     Rob.  478. 


180  APOSTLESHIP  OF  EPAPHRODITUS. 

fellow-soldier ;"  hut,  on  the  contrary*  to  the  Philippians  he 
was  an  Apostle. 

(2.)  If  Epaphroditus  was  barely  a  delegate  or  messenger 
of  the  Church  in  Philippi,  it  is  not  easy  to  conceive  why  his 
presence  was  more  necessary  in  that  Church,  than  that  of 
either  Paul  or  Timothy.  History  furnishes  us  with  no  ac- 
count of  any  pre-eminence  of  this  man,  such  as  will  account 
for  the  application  of  this  language  to  him,  unless  he  was,  in 
an  official  sense,  their  Apostle,  the  highest  officer  and  ruler  of 
the  Church  in  Philippi. 

(3.)  The  state  of  anxiety  in  which  Epaphroditus  was,  while 
sick  with  his  brother  and  fellow-soldier,  Paul,  is  such  as  ne- 
cessarily supposes  the  existence  of  ties  of  no  ordinary  kind, 
binding  him  to  that  place.  "  He  longed  after  you  all,"  that  is, 
he  earnestly  desired  to  see  you  all.'f  It  will  be  difficult  to  im- 
agine any  motive  which  would  operate  thus  strongly  upon  his 
mind,  if  he  was  simply  a  messenger  of  the  Church  ;  but  if  he 
was  their  Apostle,  how  intense  must  have  been  his  anxiety  for 
them  !  His  flock  was  left  in  those  times  of  difficulty  and 
danger,  without  its  earthly  shepherd  and  head,  deprived  of 
some  of  the  ordinances  of  the  gospel,  without  a  necessary 
and  salutary  discipline,  and  exposed  to  the  inroads  of  false 
and  heretical  teachers.  How  eminently  and  touchingly  de- 
scriptive are  those  few  words  of  Paul,  of  the  painful  anxiety 
which  must  have  filled  the  bosom  of  Epaphroditus,  if  he 
filled  this  high  office.  And  would  not  those  who  had  been 
consecrated  to  the  worship  of  the  MOST  HIGH,  or  been  or- 
dained to  the  work  of  the  ministry  by  the  imposition  of  his 
hands,  "  rejoice  when  they  saw  him  again  ?"  In  sending 
Epaphroditus  "  the  more  specdily,''^X  ^^-  P^"^  vf^^,  therefore, 
consulting  the  good  of  the  Church  at  Philippi,  and  the  plea- 
sure and  gratification  of  its  members. 

*Rob.  109.  fKob.  313.  4:Kob.  7G6. 


APOSTLESHIP  OF  EPAPHRODITUS.  181 

(4.)  That  Epaphroditus  was  more  than  simply  a  member  of 
the  Church  in  Philippi,  before  he  went  to  bear  their  alms  to 
Paul,  is  evident,  from  the  active  part  he  took  in  procuring 
them.  "  He  spared  not  his  own  life,  to  supply  me  with  that 
service  which  was  lacking  on  your  part,"  is  the  strong  lan- 
guage of  Paul.  The  whole  tenor  of  this  account,  is,  there- 
fore, in  perfect  accordance  with  the  character  of  an  Apostle, 
having  the  care,  supervision,  and  government  of  the  Church, 
while  the  language  of  it  can  not  be  applied  to  the  character  of 
a  mere  delegate,  without  doing  violence  to  its  most  natural  im- 
port. And  as  we  have  seen,  that  "  the  nature  of  an  office  in 
the  Apostolic  Church,  is  to  be  learned  from  the  extent  of 
power  ascribed  to  the  office,  or  exercised  by  the  officer,"  we 
are  required  to  suppose  that  the  person  spoken  of,  filled  that 
office  to  which  the  language  is  the  most  applicable. 

(5.)  The  language  of  the  Apostle  describes  an  office  sim- 
ilar to  that  which  he  held  himself.  Thus,  he  calls  him  "  my 
brother  and  companion  in  labor,  my  fellow-soldier,"  (Phil, 
ii.  25,)  and  "  a  true  yoke-fellow."  (Phil.  iv.  3.)  These  epithets 
could  not,  with  any  propriety,  be  applied  to  a  person  not  as- 
sociated in  office  with  the  Apostle. 

(6.)  Another  argument  in  favor  of  this  view  of  the  subject, 
may  be  derived  from  the  admitted  uniformity  of  the  Apos- 
tolic Churches.  As  we  have  proved  the  existence  of  this 
class  of  officers  at  Ephesus,  Crete,  and  other  places,  it  fol- 
lows that  there  must  have  been  such  an  officer  at  Philippi 
also  ;  and  as  the  language  applied  to  Epaphroditus  is  in  exact 
accordance  with  that  supposition,  and  there  being  no  contra- 
dictory evidence,  we  need  not  hesitate  to  say,  that  he  filled 
that  office,  and  that  there  was  in  the  Church  at  Philippi, 
one  Apostle,  having  under  him  many  Presbyter-bishops  and 
Deacons. 

This  conclusion  is  also  favored  by  the  practice  of  the  Prim- 
itive  Church,  in  sending  their  most  eminent  ministers,   as 
16* 


182  APOSTLESHIP  OF  EPAPHRODTTUS. 

messengers  to  such  as  were  in  affliction,  and  hence  they  re- 
ceived the  name  of  Angels.  Thus  when  Ignatius  was  on  his 
way  to  Rome  to  be  offered,  the  "  Churches  came  to  meet  him 
by  their  governors;"*  among  whom  were  Onesimus,  Bishop 
of  Ephesus;t  Damas,  Bishop  of  the  Church  in  Magnesia  ;;{: 
Polybius,  Bishop  of  the  Trallians  ;§  and  others  whose  names 
are  not  mentioned.  Bishops  who  went  on  these  errands  of 
mercy  and  love,  might  with  great  propriety  be  called  Apostles 
and  Angels,  both  in  the  sense  of  an  Apostolic-bishop,  and  as 
messengers  of  the  Churches.  And  that  this  was  the  capa- 
city in  which  Epaphroditus  visited  St.  Paul,  there  can  be  no 
reasonable  doubt.  || 

To  these  considerations  may  be  added  the  testimony  of  an- 
tiquity, as  all  who  speak  of  Epaphroditus,  call  him  the  Apos- 
tle of  the  Church  in  Philippi.  Thus  Jerome  says  :  "  In  pro- 
cess of  time,  others  were  ordained  Apostles,  by  those  whom 
our  Lord  hath  chosen,  as  that  passage  in  Philippians  shows, 
♦  I  supposed  it  necessary  to  send  unto  you  Epaphroditus,  your 
Apostle."'T[  And  Theodoret  says  :  "  Epaphroditus  is  called 
the  Apostle  of  the  Philippians,  because  he  was  their  Bishop."** 

We  may  say,  therefore,  concerning  the  Apostleship  of 
Epaphroditus  : 

1.  The  Scriptural  use  of  the  word  Apostle,  sustains  it ; 

2.  The  language  of  the  narrative  sustains  it ; 

3.  The  testimony  of  the  Fathers  sustains  it ; 

While  opposed  to  it,  we  have  only  a  new,  if  not  an  unau- 
thorized version,  made  by  men  who  had  an  interest  to  disprove 
it.     We  leave  our  readers  to  judge  where  the  truth  lies. 


♦  Martyr.  Tgn.  c.  4.  t^e"-  Ep.  Eph.  c.  1. 

jEp.  Mag.  c.  2.  §  Ep.  Trail,  c.  1. 

II  See  on  this  practice.  Col.  iv.    12,  13;  2  Tim.  i.  15,  16,  17,  aud  Hug's 
Intd.  N.  T.  Par.  ii.  c.  2,  §  129. 
IT  Com.  Gal.  i.  19.  **•  Com-  Plul-  ii.  25  . 


CHARACTERISTICS   OF  APOSTLESHIP.  183 

There  is  no  reasonable  doubt,  therefore,  that  Timothy, 
Titus,  and  Epaphroditus,  are  actually  called  Apostles  in  the 
New  Testament.  But  it  is  sometimes  answered  to  this,* 
that  "  The  DISTINCTIVE  CHARACTERISTIC  of  the  Apostlcship 
was  to  go  forth  and  testify  as  eye  witnesses,  among  all  nations, 
to  the  great  facts  connected  with  the  history  of  Jesus  Christ, 
especially  to  the  fact  of  his  resurrection  from  the  dead. 
They  must  have  seen  him  alive  after  his  crucifixion.  A  small 
number  of  competent  witnesses,  originally  twelve,  were  ap- 
pointed for  this  purpose." 

Hence  it  is  said,  there  could  be  no  Apostles  but  the  twelve. 
This  argument  is  based  upon  the  language  of  Christ,  (Luke 
xxiv.  48,)  "  Ye  are  witnesses  of  these  things ;"  the  lan- 
guage of  Peter,  (Acts  ii.  32  ;  v.  22,)  "  We  are  witnesses  ;" 
(x.  40,  41,)  "  Was  showed  openly  to  chosen  witnesses  ;*'  and 
on  the  language  made  use  of  at  the  election  of  Matthias,  and 
the  account  given  by  Paul  of  his  conversion.  (Acts  xxii.  14, 
15  ;  xxvi.  16  ;  1  Cor.  ix.  12  ;  xv.  8.)  From  this  it  has  been 
inferred  by  some,  that,  "  to  have  seen  the  Lord  Jesus,  was 
an  indispensable  requisite  of  the  Apostleship.  Each  of  these 
passages  we  shall  examine  by  itself. 

The  first  passage  usually  cited  in  support  of  the  preceding 
supposition,  is  Luke  xxiv.  48  :  "  Ye  are  witnesses  of  these 
things."  The  "  things"  of  which  the  persons  to  whom  this 
language  was  addressed,  were  to  be  witnesses,  is  agreed  to 
have  been  "  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ,"  and  this, 
it  is  said,  "  was  the  object  of  the  special  appointment"  of  the 
twelve.  Now  the  whole  force  of  this  argument  depends 
upon  the  truth  of  two  assumed  facts;  (1,)  that  this  language 
was  addressed  directly  to  the  eleven,  and  to  them  only,  for  if 


*  This  point  was  discussed  at  length  by  Bishop  H.  U.  Onderdonk,  of 
Pennsylvania,  and  Rev.  Albert  Barnes,  of  Philadelphia,  and  the  language 
of  "  the  objector"  under  this  head,  is  copied  from  Mr.  Barnes. 


184  CHARACTERISTICS   OF  APOSTLESHIP. 

it  was  addressed  to  others  than  the  eleven,  then  they  too  were 
to  be  "  witnesses"  of  the  same  things ;  and  if  others  beside 
the  eleven  were  to  be  "  witnesses,"  then  the  witnessing  was 
not  a  ^'peculiarity  of  the  Apostolic  office  ;"  and,  (2,)  that  this 
was  a  peculiarity  of  the  office,  for  it  would  by  no  means  fol- 
low, that  this  was  a  characteristic  of  that  office,  if  there  were 
no  other  witnesses. 

We  are  surprised  that  no  attempt  has  been  made  to  prove 
the  truth  of  that  most  material  point  of  the  first  of  the  above 
positions,  and  more  surprised,  that  no  one  has  even  averred  its 
truth.  In  a  civil  court,  such  a  declaration  would  not  entitle  a 
man  even  to  a  hearing  of  his  case,  for  it  does  not  appear 
without  that,  that  there  is  any  case  to  be  heard. 

But  though  no  one  has  attempted  to  show  that  this  language 
was  not  spoken  to  others  beside  the  eleven,  we  will  show  that 
it  was  spoken  to  others,  and  hence,  that  this  point  was  not  "  a 
peculiarity  of  the  Apostolic  office,"  or  that  there  were  more 
than  eleven  Apostles. 

"  And  they  [the  two  disciples  which  had  been  to  Em- 
maus]  rose  up  the  same  hour,  and  returned  to  Jerusalem,  and 
found  the  eleven  and  they  that  were  with  them,  gathered  to- 
gether, saying,  .  .  .  And  as  they  spake,  Jesus  himself  stood 
in  the  midst  of  them  and  said  unto  them —  ...  It  behooved 
Christ  to  suffer,  and  to  rise  again  the  third  day  ;  and  that  re- 
pentance and  remission  of  sins  should  be  preached  in  his 
name,  beginning  at  Jerusalem.  And  ye  are  witnesses  of  these 
things."     (Luke  xxiv.  33—48.) 

The  whole  of  this  transaction,  according  to  St.  Luke,  took 
place  at  the  same  time,  and  hence  all  to  whom  this  language 
was  spoken,  were  equally  witnesses  of  the  same  things. 
Now  the  persons  present  were,  the  two  disciples  who  re- 
turned from  Emmaus,  and  who  could  not  have  been  of  the 
eleven,  as  "  they  found  the  eleven  gathered  together,  with 
those  [persons]  who  were  with  [that  is,  who  consorted  or  as- 


CHARACTERISTICS  OF   APOSTLESHIP.  185 

sociated  with]  the  Apostles."  This  assembly  was  therefore 
composed  of  the  brethren  generally,  and  the  declaration,  "  ye 
are  witnesses,"  applied  equally  to  all ;  hence  all  the  brethren 
present  were  made  Apostles,  or,  the  witnessing  was  not  "  a 
peculiarity  of  the  Apostolic  office." 

We  can  not  but  express  our  surprise  that  men  of  intelli- 
gence should  insist  upon  such  a  supposition  as  this,  which 
the  reading  of  ten  verses  in  connection  would  have  over- 
thrown, and  not  only  this,  but  that  they  should  entirely  over- 
look things  so  vitally  important  to  the  truth  of  their  conclu- 
sions ;  and  also  at  the  very  strange,  if  not  absurd  position,  in 
which  this  hypothesis  places  the  sacred  historians,  since 
all  of  the  Evangelists  have  given  us  an  account  of  several 
things  contained  in  the  Apostolic  commission,  which  the  ob- 
jectors consider  of  minor  importance,  while  Luke,  who  was 
not  one  of  the  twelve,  is  the  only  one  who  has  taken  the  least 
notice  of  that  which  our  opponents  profess  to  consider  the 
only  essential  thing  in  that  commission.  It  is  indeed  passing 
strange,  if  the  hypothesis  under  consideration  be  the  true  one, 
that  neither  Matthew  nor  John,  who  were  of  the  twelve,  have 
alluded  to  that  which  is  said  to  be  the  main  object  and  design 
of  their  appointment.  Surely  they  must  have  known  the 
facts,  and  it  is  fair  to  presume,  that  if  they  had  considered 
this  point  of  as  much  consequence  as  some  moderns  would  be 
glad  to  make  it,  they  would  at  least  have  mentioned  it. 

The  next  passage  cited  is  Acts  i.  21,  22,  which  gives  an 
accoun^  of  the  election  of  Matthias,  when  Peter  said,  "one 
must  be  ordained  to  be  a  witness  with  us  of  his  resurrection." 
On  this  we  need  only  remark,  that  as  there  is  nothing  here 
which  declares  this  to  be  the  only  object  of  the  election  of 
Matthias,  the  conclusion  attempted  to  be  drawn,  does  not 
follow.  Besides,  St.  Luke,  who  wrote  this  account,  can  not 
be  understood  as  saying  that  none  but  the  Apostles  were  to  be 
witnesses,  as  we  have  seen  the  last  chapter  of  his  own  gos- 
pel informs  us  that  the  fact  was  not  so. 


186  CHARACTERISTICS   OF  APOSTLESHIP. 

The  next  passage  cited,  is  Acts  ii.  32  :  "  This  Jesus  hath 
God  raised  up,  whereof  we  are  ALL  witnesses."  Now  it  is 
important  for  those  who  set  up  the  claim  we  are  considering, 
to  show  who  were  intended  by  "  we  all,"  as  it  is  essential  to 
their  argument  that  it  should  include  the  twelve,  and  no  more 
and  no  less.  But  this  they  can  not  do,  as  will  be  seen  from 
the  following  considerations.  It  is  said,  Acts  ii.  1,  that  "  they 
[the  Christians]  were  all  with  one  accord,  in  one  place." 
And  after  the  news  of  the  miracle  which  had  been  wrought 
had  gone  abroad,  a  multitude  of  people  came  together,  and 
when  they  had  thus  assembled,  "  Peter  stood  up  with  the 
eleven  and  said."  (ii.  14.)  Now  if  Peter,  when  thus  situa- 
ted, had  said,  as  is  represented,  "  we  are  witnesses,"  and  said 
nothing  more,  it  would  only  include  the  eleven,  and  hence 
Matthias  would  not  be  included,  as  it  is  not  said  that  he  was 
there  ;  but  when  he  uses  the  strong  language,  "  we  are  all 
witnesses,"  it  is  evident  that  he  intended  to  include  all  "  the 
brethren"  present. 

Next,  Acts  V.  32  :  "And  we  are  his  witnesses."  If  Peter, 
w^hen  saying  that  the  Apostles  wore  "his  witnesses,"  had  in- 
tended to  say  that  they  were  "  his  only  witnesses,"  it  is  mat- 
ter of  surprise  that  he  did  not  give  some  intimation  of  the 
kind. 

Again,  Acts  x.  39 — 41  :  "  And  we  are  witnesses  of  all 
things  which  Jesus  did,  both  in  the  land  of  the  Jews,  and  in 
Jerusalem,  whom  they  slew  and  hanged  on  a  tree  ;  Him  God 
raised  up  and  showed  openly  ;  not  to  all  the  people,  but  unto 
witnesses  chosen  before  of  God — to  us  who  did  eat  and  drink 
with  him  after  he  rose  from  the  dead."  In  regard  to  this  pas- 
sage, two  things  deserve  consideration.  First,  who  was  in- 
tended by  "  we"  and  "  us  ?"  The  narrative  gives  no  account 
of  any  one  being  present  who  had  seen  the  Lord,  save  Peter 
himself,  and  hence,  the  meaning  of  these  words  in  the  text,  is 
the  same  as  in  this,  or  any  other  work  of  an  author,  and  refers 


CHARACTERISTICS   OF  APOSTLESHIP.  187 

simply  to  the  speaker  himself.  The  second  point  is,  who 
were  the  "chosen  witnesses"  to  whom  Christ  was  shown? 
The  Apostle  tells  us  that  "  God  showed  him  not  openly  to  all 
the  people,  but  to  witnesses  chosen  before  of  God"  Every 
person,  therefore,  to  whom  Christ  was  shown  after  his 
resurrection,  was  a  "  chosen  witness"  to  his  resurrection, 
"  chosen  of  God"  for  this  very  purpose.  It  will  therefore  be 
incumbent  on  the  objector  to  prove,  either  that  Christ  was 
seen  onli/  by  the  twelve,  or  that  St.  Peter  was  mistaken,  or 
else  give  up  this  hypothesis  in  regard  to  the  peculiarity  of  the 
Apostolic  commission,  or  else  allow  that  there  were  more  than 
twelve  Apostles,  But  this  can  not  be  done;  for  if  the  fact  of 
having  seen  the  Saviour  after  his  resurrection,  constituted  an 
Apostle,  the  election  of  Matthias  was  unnecessary,  as  upon 
the  principles  in  question,  he  was  as  much  an  Apostle  before, 
as  after  his  election. 

The  foregoing  passages,  it  is  claimed  by  the  objector,  con- 
tain "  all  that  is  said  in  the  New  Testament  of  the  original 
design  of  the  appointment  of  the  Apostolic  office."  And 
surely,  our  readers  will  agree  with  us,  that  if  this  be  "  all  of 
the  peculiarity  of  the  Apostolic  office,"  then  there  was  no  pe- 
culiarity of  that  office  ;  at  least,  none  which  can  affect  the 
government  of  the  Church. 

All  the  other  passages  referred  to,  relate  to  the  conversion 
of  Paul,  and  the  language  relied  upon  is,  he  was  "  called  to  be 
a  minister  and  witness  of  the  things  he  had  seen  and  heard." 
(Acts  xxii.  14,  15  ;  xxiii.  11  ;  xxvi.  16  ;  1  Cor.  ix.  1,  2  ;  xv. 
8.)  Now  the  question  whether  the  "  witnessing''''  was  the  pe- 
culiarity of  this  Apostle's  commission,  depends  mainly  upon 
the  fact,  whether  that  was  the  distinguishing  feature  of  the 
Apostolic  office,  which  we  have  seen  was  not  the  fact.  Hence 
this  could  not  be  the  material  point  in  the  commission  of  St. 
Paul. 

But  because  the  objectors  find  no  account  of  an  "  Episco- 


188  APOSTLES  APPOINTED  SUCCESSORS. 

pal  investment"  of  "  superiority  of  ministerial  powers  and 
rights"  in  what  they  have  been  pleased  to  call  "  the  peculiarity 
of  their  office,"  they  ask,  with  an  apparent  air  of  triumph, 
"  why  this  omission  ?"  It  is  easy  to  tell  them  "  why"  they 
find  no  such  grant  of  powers  ;  they  have  not  looked  in  the 
right  place  ;  they  have  mistaken  the  record  of  the  appoint- 
ment, for  the  commission  itself.  They  might  as  well  exam- 
ine the  list  of  names  in  the  Commissions  of  the  Peace,  to 
ascertain  the  authority  of  the  Justices,  or  the  muster  roll  of  a 
militia  company,  to  learn  the  duty  of  a  soldier.  The  objec- 
tions, therefore,  are  without  force  or  pertinence. 

That  the  Apostles  appointed  successors  to  themselves,  in 
all  Churches,  is  proved  by  the  unanimous  voice  of  all  anti- 
quity. Thus,  Clement  of  Rome,  the  disciple  and  associate 
of  St.  Paul,  expressly  says,*  that  "they  appointed  persons 
[to  the  ministerial  office]  and  then  gave  direction  in  what 
manner,  when  these  should  die,  other  approved  men  should 
succeed  in  the  ministry."  And  in  another  place,!  he  says, 
*'  God  hath  himself  ordained  by  his  supreme  will,  both  where 
and  by  what  persons  [our  offerings  and  services]  are  to  be  per- 
formed." The  same  thing  is  testified  to,  by  Irenaeus,  the  dis- 
ciple of  Polycarp,:j:  and  by  Tertullian,  in  the  same  age.^ 

Many  of  the  names  of  the  persons  so  appointed,  have  been 
preserved  to  the  present  day.  Thus,  Hegessipus,  who  wrote 
about  150  or  160,  says,  that  "  James  received  the  government 
of  the  Church  at  Jerusalem,  from  the  Apostles. "||  And  Cle- 
ment of  Alexandria,  bears  witness  to  the  same  fact.H  Pol- 
YCARP,  too,  was  appointed  Bishop  of  Smyrna,  by  the  Apos- 
tles.**    So  Linus  was  the  first  Bishop  of  Rome  ;t|  Annia- 

*  Ep.  Cor.  c.  44.  t  I^P-  Cor.  c.  40.  %  Adv.  Haer.  iii.  3. 

$  Praes.  Adv.  Haer.  c.  32.       ||  Com.  L.  v.  in  Euseb.  Ecc.  Hist.  ii.  23. 
IT  Inst.  L.  vi.  in  Euseb.  Ecc.  Hist.  i.  1.  **  Jren.  Adv.  Haer.  iri.  3. 

tt  Irfcii.  Adv.  Haer.  iii.  3.     Euseb.  iii.  2. 


UNIVERSAL   IN   THE   SECOND   CENTURY.  189 

Nus,  the  first   Bishop  of  Alexandria,*  and  Evodiu.s,  the  firs 
Bishop  of  Antioch-I 

In  the  age  of  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian,  this  fact  was  appealed 
to,  as  a  test  of  orthodoxy.  Thus  Tertullian  addresses  the 
Heretics,^  "  If  any  dare  mingle  themselves  with  the  Apos- 
tolic age,  that  thus  they  may  appear  to  be  handed  down  from 
the  Apostles,  because  they  were  under  the  Apostles,  we  may 
say :  Let  them  show  the  beginnings  of  their  Churches  ;  let 
them  declare  the  series  of  their  Bishops,  so  running  down 
from  the  beginning  by  successions,  that  the  first  Bishop  may 
have  been  one  of  the  Apostles,  or  Apostolic  men  who  yet 
continued  with  the  Apostles,  for  their  author  and  predecessor. 
For  in  this  manner  the  Apostolical  Churches  trace  their 
origin." 

And  Irenaeus  also  says,!^  "  It  is  easy,  therefore,  for  all   in 
the  whole  Church,  if  they  desire  to  know  what  is  truth,  to 
ascertain  it,  the  tradition  of  the  Apostles  having  been  mani- 
fested to  the  whole  world.     And  we  are  able  to  enumerate 
those  who  were  appointed  by  the  Apostles,  Bishops  in  the 
Churches,  and  their  successors,  in  a  continued  course  to  us, 
who  have  taught  nothing  of  this,  neither  have  they  known 
(any  thing)  of  what  is  idly  talked  of  by  them,  (i.  e.  heretics.) 
For  if  the  Apostles  had  known  hidden  mysteries,  which  they 
taught  secretly  lo  the  perfect,  separate  from  the   rest,  they 
would  most  assuredly  have  taught  it  to  those  to   whom  they 
also  committed  the  Churches.     For  they  desired  those  to  be 
very  highly  perfect  and  irreproachable  in  all  things,   whom 
they  left  their  successors — giving  (to  them)  their  own  office 
of  governing  ;  as  great  usefulness  would  result  from  their  act 
ing  correctly  ;  but  the  greatest  evils  from  their  falling." 
2.  To  the  Apostles  and  those  to  whom  they  had  committed 

*Euseb.  iii.  14.  f  Euseb  iii.  22.  ^  Pises.  Adv.  Haer.  c.  32. 

§  Adv.  Haer.  iii.  3. 

17 


190  APOSTLES  AND  APOSTOLIC   BISHOPS, 

apostolic  authority,  belonged  the  exclusive  right  of  appointing 
or  ordaining  Presbyters  and  Deacons.  It  is  sufficient  proof 
of  this,  that  there  is  no  mention  of  an  appointment  or  ordina- 
tion to  such  an  office,  by  any  one  but  an  Apostle  ;  for  it  is 
agreed  that  the  Apostolic  history  and  epistles  contain  allu- 
sions to  the  organization  of  the  Apostolic  Church,  sufficiently 
distinct  to  enable  us  to  determine  what  it  was.  We  are  not 
permitted,  therefore,  to  infer  or  presume  any  thing  in  regard  to 
the  organization  of  that  Church,  except  from  statements  made 
concerning  it,  or  references  to  it,  contained  in  the  Apostolic 
writings.  Hence,  to  assume  that  the  exclusive  right  of  or- 
daining Presbyters  and  Deacons  was  not  vested  in  the 
Apostles,  because  it  is  not  expressly  allt:;dged  in  Scripture  to 
be  so,  is  to  give  up  every  principle  of  argument  upon  which 
these  inquiries  must  necessarily  proceed.  If,  then,  the  Apos- 
tles did  ordain,  they  had  a  right  to  ordain  ;  and  if  no  one  else 
ordained,  then  no  one  else  had  a  right  to  ordain.  To  take  any 
other  ground,  is  to  deny  that  we  can  ascertain  from  the  Bible, 
what  was  the  organization  of  the  Apostolic  Church.  And  if 
this  be  the  fact,  then  there  is  no  use  in  inquiring  about  it.  If 
then  we  can  prove,  that  the  Apostles,  and  those  upon  whom 
they  had  conferred  Apostolic  authority,  did  ordain,  we  are  au- 
thorized to  say,  that  they  only  had  the  right  to  ordain  ;  unless 
it  can  be  clearly  shown  that  others  also  ordained. 

That  the  Apostles  did  ordain,  is  conceded  by  all,  and  testi- 
fied to  by  the  whole  body  of  ancient  writers  in  the  primi- 
tive Church.  Thus  we  have  the  record  in  numerous  ordi- 
nations by  the  Apostles,  of  particular  Churches,  which  will 
be  considered  elsewhere,  to  which  we  add  a  quotation  from 
Clement,  of  Alexandria,  A.  D.  175.  He  says,  after  the 
death  of  the  Roman  Emperor,  the  Apostle  St.  John  returned 
"  from  the  isle  of  Patmos  to  Ephesus.  lie  went  also  to  the 
neighboring  regions  of  the  Gentiles  ;  in  some  to  appoint  Bish- 
ops, in  some  to  institute  entire  new  Churches,  and  in  others 


ORDAINED  PRESBYTERS  Ax\D  DEACONS.  191 

to  appoint  to  the  ministry  those  that  were  pointed  out  by  the 
Holy  Ghost."* 

In  order,  however,  to  place  the  subject  beyond  doubt,  we 
shall  briefly  consider  the  various  instances  in  the  New  Tes^ 
tament,  where  an  ordination  or  appointment  to  such  an  office  is 
spoken  of.  The  first  account  of  this  kind  is  that  of  the  seven 
Deacons,  (Acts  vi.,)  which  has  been  claimed  by  those  who 
deny  the  ojjicial  character  of  the  Apostles,  as  an  election  by 
the  people,  instead  of  an  Apostolic  ordination.  But  we  have 
before  shown,  that  the  act  of  the  Church  was  not  an  election 
or  an  appointment  to  office,  but  a  testimony  to  the  character  of 
those  the  Apostles  were  to  appoint.!  The  next  case  relates 
to  the  "ordination  of  Presbyters  in  every  Church,"  (Acts  xiv. 
23  ;)  which  has  also  been  claimed  by  the  same  class  of  per- 
sons, as  an  election  to  office  by  the  votes  of  the  members  of 
the  Church ;  but  which  we  have  shown  could  not  have  been 
the  fact,  and  that  the  concurrence  of  the  brethren,  if  any,  con- 
sisted only  in  bearing  testimony  to  the  unblemished  and  Christ- 
ian character  of  those  the  Apostles  were  about  to  ordain. J 

The  next  case  claimed  as  an  ordination  by  others  than  Apos- 
tles, is  that  of  Timothy  ;  and  the  proof  cited  is  the  language 
of  Paul,  (1  Tim.  iv.  14,)  "Neglect  not  the  gift  which  was 
given  thee  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the 
Preahyteryy  In  connection  with  this,  however,  we  must  con- 
sider what  the  same  Apostle  says  to  the  same  person,  (2  Tim. 
i.  6,)  "  Wherefore  I  put  thee  in  remembrance,  that  thou  stir 
up  the  gift  of  God  which  is  in  thee,  hy  the  putting  on  of  my 
hands. ^^  Now  these  are  distinct,  independent  statements  of  a 
matter  of  fact,  and  are  both  universally  admitted  to  have  ref- 
erence to  an  ordination.  Hence,  then,  either  Timothy  was 
ordained,  first,  by  the  Presbytery,  and  subsequently  by  an  Apos^- 
tie,   or  else  both  refer  to  the  same  ordination.     But  the  most 

*  Quis  Dives  Salv.  in  Eusb.  iii.  23.         f  Ante.  p.  144.         %  Ante.  p.  157. 


192  ORDINATION  OF  TIMOTHY, 

Strenuous  opponents  of  the  exclusive  right  of  the  Apostles  to 
ordain,  do  not  contend  for  two  ordinations,  but  all  agree  in  re- 
ferring boi-h  to  the  same  transaction.  To  refer  this  to  two 
transactions,  would  be  to  make  two  ordinations  ;  one  by  the 
Presbytery,  and  a  subsequent  one  by  St.  Paul,  which  would 
lead  us  to  suspect  that  the  first  was  insufficient.  We  must 
therefore  put  such  a  construction  on  both  accounts,  as  will 
make  them  harmonize.  Putting  the  independent  parts  of  the 
two  passages  together,  and  it  will  read  thus  :  "  Neglect  not 
the  gift  of  God  which  is  in  thee,  by  the  putting  on  of  my 
hands,  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery." 
Nothing  can  be  plainer  than  this.  The  ordination  was  by 
an  Apostle,  with  the  concurrence  of  the  Presbytery.  And 
yet,  plain  as  it  appears,  a  thousand  shifts  have  been  made,  a 
thousand  subterfuges  laid  hold  of,  in  order  to  evade  the  force 
of  this  most  evident  conclusion.  This  fact  must  be  our  apol- 
ogy for  devoting  more  time  to  a  consideration  of  these  passa- 
ges, than  otherwise  would  be  necessary. 

In  2  Tim.  (i,  6,)  the  gift  is  said  to  have  been  given  {dia)  by 
the  putting  on  of  my  hands,  and  in  1  Tim.  (iv.  14,)  [mcta,) 
with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery.  The  force 
of  the  language  here  used,  depends  much  on  the  signification 
of  dia  and  meta,  by  and  with^  and  much  time  and  labor  has 
been  expended  to  show  that  both  were  the  same  thing ;  that 
the  Apostle  merely  used  by,  for  the  sake  of  euphony.  This 
notion,  however,  is  as  fallacious  as  it  is  contrary  to  the  evi- 
dent language  of  Scripture. 

Dia,  says  Prof.  Robinson,*  "  is  a  preposition  with  the  pri- 
mary signification,  through,  throughout,  governing  the  genitive 
and  accusative  ;  with  the  genitive  (as  in  this  case)  through. 
When  the  instrument  or  immediate  cause,  that  which  inter- 
venes between  the  act  of  the   will  and  the   effect,  through 

•*  p.  178. 


BY  PAUL,  WITH  THE  PRESBYTERY.  193 

which  the  effect  proceeds,  is  spoken  of,  through^  by  means  of; 
and  when  applied  to  persons  through  whose  hands  any  thing, 
as  it  were,  passes  through,  or  by  whose  agency  or  ministry 
an  effect  takes  place  or  is  produced,  denotes  the  efficient  cause." 
"  By  the  laying  on  of  Paul's  hands,"  denotes,  therefore,  that 
the  "  gift  of  God"  passed  through  Paul,  and  was  conveyed  to 
Timothy,  by  the  imposition  of  the  Apostle's  hands,  he  being 
"  the  efficient  cause,  by  whose  agency  the  effect  was  pro- 
duced." 

Meta,  says  Prof.  Robinson,*  "  is  a  preposition  governing 
the  genitive  and  accusative  ;  in  poets  also  the  dative,  with  the 
primary  signification,  mid,  amid,  i.  e.  in  the  midst,  with,  among 
implying  accompaniment,  and  thus  differing  from  sune,  which 
expresses  conjunction,  union.  With  the  genitive  (as  is  this 
case)  implies,  companionship,  fellowship :  signifying  with^ 
i.  e.  together  with,  and  with  the  genitive  of  a  thing,  desig- 
nates the  state  or  emotion  of  mind  which  accompanies  the 
doing  of  any  thing,  with  which  one  acts  ;  or,  (as  here,)  desig- 
nates an  external  action,  circumstance,  or  condition  with 
which  another  action  or  event  is  accompanied."  The  ordi- 
nation of  Timothy  was,  therefore,  by  Paul,  with  the  concur- 
rence of  the  Presbytery.  And  this  concurrence  was,  no 
doubt,  manifested  in  the  same  manner  as  the  concurrence  of 
the  people,  in  the  selection  of  Deacons.  Such  a  concurrence 
could  not  have  been  necessary  for  the  Apostle,  and  conse- 
quently must  have  been  designed  as  a  precedent  to  guide  the 
Church  in  after  ages. 

We  have  pursued  this  question  thus  far,  as  though  the 
meaning  of  Presbytery  had  been  settled,  and  that  it  signified 
a  council  composed  solely  of  the  order  of  ministers  in  the 
Apostolic  Church,  called  Presbyters.     This  however  has  not 

*  P.  509. 
17* 


194  NATURE  OF  THE  PRESBYTERY. 

been  shown,  nor  can  it  be  proved.     The  word  Presluteroi, 
(Presbytery,)  is  used  in  Luke,  (xxii.  QQ,)  to  denote  the  elders 
of  the  people,   or  council  before  which  Jesus  was  arraigned' 
and  in  Acts,  (xxii.  5,)  to  signify  the  estate  of  the  elders,  or  the 
council  before  which  Paul  was  arraigned,  and  in  1  Tim.  (iv.  14,) 
to  signify  the  body,  (if  any,)  that  concurred  with  Paul  in  the 
ordination  of  Timothy.     Now  as  Presbytery  literally  signifies 
a  council  of  elders*  and  as  we  have  seen  that  a  name  does 
not  determine  the  nature  of  an  office    in  the  Church,  and  as 
this  is  the  only  place  in  the  New  Testament  where  this  word 
is  used  in  this  sense,  we  are  not  authorized  to  infer  the  na- 
ture of  this  body  from  the  name  by  which  it  is  called.     There 
are  various   ways  in   which  this  body  might  have  been  made 
up,  entirely  consistent  with  the  meaning  of  the  word,  whether 
it  is  determined  by  Scripture  or  other  authority.    (1,)  It  might 
have  been  composed  of  Apostles  alone  ;  (2,)   of  Presbyters 
alone  ;  (3,)  of  Apostles  and  Presbyters  together ;  or  (4)   of 
Apostles,  Presbyters,  and  people.     Amid  such  uncertainty,  it 
is  altogether  illogical,  as  well  as  unauthorized,  to  assume  that 
the  second  of  these  meanings   is  the  true  one,   and  to  make 
that  the  foundation  of  an  argument,  whereon  to  rest  the  author- 
ity of  the  ministry  in    any   Church,  as  those  who  assert  the 
authority  of  ordination  by  Presbyters  are  obliged  to  do. 

But  further,  if  Presbytery  here  denotes  an  ecclesiastical 
council,  the  admitted  uniformity  of  the  Apostolic  Churches 
compels  us  to  suppose  that  it  was  composed  of  the  same  class 
of  persons  who  made  up  the  other  councils  in  the  Apostolic 
Church,  that  is,  of  Apostles  and  Presbyters,  as  in  Acts  xv. 

Again,  it  is  not  certain  that  Presbytery  denotes  a  council, 
and  it  has  been  held  by  some  strong  advocates  of  ordination 
by  Presbyters,  to  denote  the  office  to  which  Timothy  was  ap- 
pointed, and  not  the  means  by  which  he  was  appointed  to  it. 


*  Rob.  697, 


CASE  OF  PAUL  AND  BARNABAS.  195 

Such  was  the  opinion  of  John  Calvin,   as  expressed  in  his 
Institutes* 

Another  case  sometimes  quoted  as  an  instance  of  ordina- 
tion by  Presbyters,  is  that  of  Paul  and  Barnabas.  (Acts  xiii. 
1 — 3.)  To  this  it  is  sufficient  to  reply,  that  Paul  and  Barna- 
bas were  both  in  the  ministry  before  this  time ;  and  that  St. 
Paul  had  been  a  preacher,  at  least /^;wr^ecn  years.  Conse- 
quently, this  act  could  not  have  been  an  ordination  to  the 
priesthood.  If  then,  it  was  an  ordination  at  all,  it  must  have 
been  to  the  Apostleship.  But  this  is  rendered  altogether  im- 
probable by  St.  Paul's  own  account  of  the  matter.  Pie  as- 
sures the  Galatians,  (c.  i.  1,)  that  he  was  "  an  Apostle,  not  of 
{apo)  men,  neither  hy  {dia)  man,  but  by  [dia)  Jesus  Christ, 
and  God  the  Father."  And  this  language,  according  to  Pro- 
fessor Robinson,  signifies,  "  an  Apostle,  not  from,  or  of  men, 
nor  by  the  agency  or  ministry  of  men,  but  by  the  agency  and 
ministry  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  God  the  Father."!  ^^'  then, 
St.  Paul  did  not  receive  his  Apostleship  from  man,  nor  by  the 
agency  or  ministry  of  men,  this  transaction  could  not  have 
been  an  ordination  to  the  Apostleship. 

That  it  was  a  separation  to  a  particular  work,  is  admitted, 
and  it  may  be  well  to  inquire  who  were  the  persons  con- 
cerned in  it.  The  names  of  only  three  are  mentioned  :  "  Si- 
meon, who  is  also  called  Niger  ;  Lucius,  of  Cyrene,  [in  Af- 
rica,] and  Manaen,  who  was  brought  up  with  Herod,  the  Te- 
trarch,"  or  "  the  foster  brother  of  Herod  Antipas,  of  Galilee." 
Whether  these  persons  were  Elders  or  Presbyters  of  the 
Church  of  Antioch,  is  uncertain.  The  language  of  the  histo- 
rian is  quite  as  applicable  to  persons  assembled  there,  as  to 
persons  residing  there.  They  were  "  in  the  Church  that  was 
at  Antioch  ;"  but  it  does  not  appear  that  they  were  "  of  the 
Church  of  Antioch."     This  was  the  language  of  St.  Luke  on 


*L.  iv.  c.  3,  as  quoted  by  Abp.  Potter  on  Church  Gov.  p.  267. 
tRob.  17S. 


196  PAUL  AND  BARNABAS 

another  occasion,  "  the  Elders  of  the  Church  of  Ephesus," 
(Acts  XX.)  and  the  variation  in  this  place  is  worthy  of  obser- 
vation. 

Now  we  know  that  Lucius  was  a  Cyrenian,  and  Manaen,  a 
Galilean,  even  if  they  were  then  residing  at  Antioch.  But 
who  was  Simeon  ?  This  can  not  be  answered  with  cer- 
tainty, but  the  following  circumstances  ^raise  a  strong  pre- 
sumption as  to  his  identity.  In  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians, 
St.  Paul  tells  us,  that  he  did  not  visit  Jerusalem  the  first  time 
after  his  conversion,  until  after  the  lapse  of  three  years,  (Gal. 
i.  18,)  when  he  "  went  up  to  see  Peter,  and  abode  with  him 
fifteen  days."  His  second  visit  was  "  fourteen  years  after" 
his  first  visit,  or  after  his  conversion,  in  company  "  with  Bar- 
nabas." (Gal.  ii.  1.)  We  also  learn  from  the  Acts  of  the 
Apo«;tles,  that  Paul  at  his  first  visit,  left  Jerusalem  and  went 
to  Tarsus,  (Acts  ix.  27 — 30  ;)  that  he  went  from  thence  with 
Barnabas  to  Antioch,  (Acts  xi.  25,  26  ;)  that  subsequently 
they  proceeded  from  Antioch  to  Jerusalem,  (Acts  xi.  30,)  and 
returned  again  to  Antioch,  (Acts  xii.  25; )  at  which  time  the 
occurrence  under  consideration  took  place. 

It  will  also  be  seen  from  the  second  chapter  of  Galatians, 
that  while  at  Jerusalem,  James,  and  Peter,  and  John,  gave  to 
Paul  and  Barnabas  the  right  hand  of  fellowship,  that  they 
should  go  unto  the  heathen,  (Gal.  ii.  9,)  and  that  immediately 
after  Peter  proceeded  to  Antioch,  and  was  there  with  Paul 
and  Barnabas  before  they  left.  (Gal.  ii.  11.)  Consequently, 
Peter  must  have  been  at  Antioch,  at,  or  very  near  the  time  of 
the  "  setting  apart"  of  Paul  and  Barnabas.  Now  if  we  look 
into  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  Acts,  we  shall  find  that  Peter 
himself,  is  called  Simeon.*     (Acts  xv.  7,  14.)     And  there  is 

*  Simon,  the  original  name  of  Peter,  (Matt.  x.  2  ;  Mark  iii.  10  ;  Luke 
vi.  4  ;  John  i.  42,)  is  in  the  Hebrew,  Simeon,  (nnX^'n'tB)  ^"^'  Peter  calls 
liiniself  liy  that  name  at  the  l)Og-inning  of  his  Epistle,  in  nearly  all  the 
versions  and  manuscripts,  though  rendered  in  the  English,  Simon. 


SET  APART  BY  PETER.  197 

no  mention  of  any  other  person  bearing  this  name  in  the  Acts 
or  any  of  the  epistles.  We  are  led,  therefore,  to  the  proba- 
ble conclusion,  that  the  "  Simeon"  who  assisted  in  setting 
apart  Paul  and  Barnabas,  was  none  other  than  Peter  himself. 
The  application  of  the  names  "  prophets  and  teachers"  to 
these  persons,  proves  nothing  either  way,  as  it  does  not  ap- 
pear that  they  exercised  any  power,  or  performed  any  duty 
by  virtue  of  them.  If  then,  Simeon  was  an  Apostle,  the  pre- 
sumption is  rendered  very  strong,  that  Lucius  and  Manean 
were  something  more  than  mere  Presbyters  and  Elders. 

Should  it  be  said  that  this  visit  of  St.  Peter  might  have 
been  at  some  other  time,  and  consequently  that  we  are  not  at 
liberty  to  assume  that  Peter  was  at  Antioch  at  this  time,  the 
answer  is  found  in  the  history.  Paul  and  Barnabas  left  An- 
tioch immediately  after  being  set  apart  to  their  work,  (Acts 
xiii.  4.)  And  after  an  absence  of  considerable  time,  returned 
to  the  same  place.  (Acts  xiv.  26.)  While  here,  at  this  time, 
the  great  dissension  in  regard  to  the  Mosaic  law  took  place, 
and  Paul  and  Barnabas  were  deputed  to  Jerusalem  on  the 
subject,  where  they  found  Peter.  The  disputed  question  was 
now  settled,  and  Paul  and  Barnabas  returned  to  Antioch. 
(Acts  xiv.  27;  xv.  1 — 30.)  Now  by  reference  to  the  second 
chaj)ter  of  Galatians,  it  will  be  seen,  that  the  difference  be- 
tween Paul  and  Peter  arose  out  of  the  very  subject  that  was 
settled  at  Paul's  third  visit  to  Jerusalem,  so  that  the  circum- 
stances there  related,  could  not  well  have  transpired  subse- 
quent to  that  time.  Peter's  visit  at  Antioch  must,  therefore, 
have  been  at  the  very  time  we  have  supposed.  Besides,  St. 
Paul's  argument  to  the  Gentiles  implies  that  it  was  immedi- 
ately after  his  second  visit. 

No  presumptions  contrary  to  this  conclusion  can  be  raised, 
unless  there  are  some  other  facts,  which,  as  far  as  we  know, 
is  not  the  case.  The  presumptions  in  favor  of  this  conclu- 
sion, are,  (1,)  Peter  was  at  Antioch  at  this  very  time  ;  (2,)  Pe- 


198  CONSENT  OF  PRIMITIVE   TESTIMONY. 

ter  is  called  Simeon ,  (3,)  no  one  else  is,  unless  the  case 
under  consideration  be  an  exception  ;  and  consequently,  (4,) 
whether  this  were  an  ordination,  or  a  mere  setting  apart  to 
some  particular  work,  it  was  done  by  at  least  one  Apostle,  to- 
gether with  two  others,  who  were  probably  Apostolic  Bishops. 
And  these,  in  connection  with  the  admitted  uniformity  of  pro- 
ceeding in  the  Apostolic  Church,  and  the  known  practice  in 
it,  amount  to  little  short  of  demonstration. 

The  passages  we  have  examined  are  the  only  ones  which 
can  be  urged  in  favor  of  Presbyter-ordination,  and  as  they  do 
not  authorize  it,  the  inference  is  inevitable,  that  the  Apostles, 
and  those  to  whom  they  had  committed  Apostolic  authority, 
had  the  sole  and  exclusive  power  of  ordaining  Presbyters  and 
Deacons  in  the  Apostolic  Church. 

If  we  turn  to  the  Fathers,  we  shall  find  the  evidence  en- 
tirely conclusive,  that  the  Bishops,  who  were  considered  the 
successors  of  the  Apostles,  and  they  alone,  had  the  exclusive 
power  to  ordain.  The  Apostolical  Canons,  which  describe 
the  customs  of  the  Greek  and  Oriental  Churches  in  the  sec- 
ond century,*  give  directions  concerning  the  ordination  of  the 
several  orders  of  the  clergy.  The  first  canon  enacts,  that 
"  A  Bishop  must  be  ordained  by  two  or  three  Bishops.  A 
Presbyter  or  Deacon,  by  one  Bishop." 

And  the  whole  current  of  ancient  authorities  are  all  so  uni- 
formly to  the  same  purpose,  that  no  one  has  pretended  to  find 
a  single  opposing  authority,  until  more  than  two  hundred  and 
fifty  years  after  the  death  of  St.  John,  A.  D.  100  ;  that  is,  not 
before  A.  D.  350.  Such  a  person  can  not  be  authority,  (1,)  be- 
cause he  did  not  live  at  the  time  ;  and  (2)  because  he  is  di- 
rectly contradicted  by  earlier  authorities.  Yet  as  much  stress 
is  laid  upon  an  author  of  this  period,  we  shall  quote  all  he 
says,  entire. 

♦MurtlocU's  Moslieim,  vol.  1,  p.  221. 


OPINION   OF  JEROME  ON  EPISCOPACY.  199 

That  the  opinion  of  Jerome  concerning  the  distinction  be- 
tween Bishops  and  Presbyters,  was  different  from  that  of  all 
his  predecessors,  those  at  all  acquainted  with  ecclesiastical 
history  are  well  aware.  Hence,  he  has  become  the  favorite 
author  of  two  classes  of  opponents  of  Apostolic  organization : 
those  who  would  subvert  it,  by  teaching  the  original  equal- 
ity of  all  the  clerg}^,  and  those  who  would  subvert  the  inde- 
pendency of  it,  by  teaching  that  all  Bishops  are  mere  crea- 
tures of  a  Supreme  Bishop  ;  and  both  classes  of  opponents 
use  much  the  same  arguments,  to  gain  their  respective  ends. 
But  though  it  is  generally  known  that  the  opinions  of  Jerome 
on  this  subject  were  different  from  those  of  his  predecessors, 
it  does  not  seem  to  be  generally  known,  what  his  opinions 
were.  Now  it  matters  not  what  they  were,  so  far  as  the  au- 
thority of  Apostolical  organization  is  concerned,  since  he  lived 
and  wrote  about  250  years  after  the  death  of  all  the  Apostles, 
and  could  not,  therefore,  know  any  thing  on  the  subject,  ex- 
cept from  history,  as  we  have  numerous  earlier  authors,  who 
contradict  the  usual  interpretation  put  upon  his  writings  ;  yet 
for  the  better  understanding  of  the  subject,  we  shall  quote  all 
the  passages  at  length,  that  are  usually  cited  from  Jerome 
against  the  Apostolic  practice.  In  this  way,  our  readers  will 
be  able  to  see  how  far  anti-Apostolic  Jerome  was,  and  of 
course,  how  much  his  pretended  followers  of  the  present  day, 
can  make  out  of  his  testimony.  The  three  passages  relied 
upon,  are,  his  Epistle  to  Oceanum*  his  Epistle  to  Evangelum,\ 
and  his  Comment  on  Titus  i.  7. 

In  his  Epistle  to  Oceanum,  Jerome  is  commenting  on  the 
language  of  St.  Paul,  in  his  Epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus, 
when  he  says  :  "  In  both  Epistles,  whether  Bishops  or  Pres- 
byters, (although  among  the  ancients,  the  same  who  were  Bish- 
ops, ivere  also  Presbyters,)  they  were  conmianded  to  be  chosen 
into  the  clergy,  who  had  but  one  wife." 


*  82,  or  83.  f  Old  Ediiions,  Evagrius,  101,  or  85. 


200  OPINION  OF  JEROME  CONCERNING  BISHOPS. 

The  Epistle  to  Evangeh/m,  if  it  be  genuine,  which  some 
doubt,  was  written  on  hearing  that  some  one  had  given  Dea- 
cons preference  to  Presbyters,  as  though  they  were  of  a  supe- 
rior order.  Upon  this,  he  says  :  "  I  hear  that  one  was  so 
impudent  as  to  rank  Deacons  before  Presbyters,  that  is,  Bish- 
ops. Now  the  Apostle  plainly  declares  the  same  to  be  Pres- 
byters, who  also  are  Bishops.''''  And  after  mentioning  some  of 
the  duties  of  Deacons  and  Presbyters,  he  proceeds  to  quote 
Phil.  i.  1  ;  Acts  xx.  17,  18  ;  Tit.  i.  5,  7  ;  1  Tim.  iii  8,  in  proof 
of  the  position  he  had  before  laid  down,  when  he  adds  : 

"  Who  are  significantly  called  in  the  Greek,  episcopountes, 
from  whence  the  name  of  Episcopi  (Bishops)  is  derived." 
He  then  quotes  from  one  Caius,  a  Presbyter,  who  says  : — 
"In  the  See  of  Alexandria,  from  St.  Mark,  the  Evangelist,  to 
Heraclas  and  Dionysius,  Bishops,  the  Presbyters  always 
elected  one  from  among  themselves,  and  raising  him  to  a 
higher  rank,  they  called  him  Bishop ;  much  as  an  army  chooses 
an  Emperor,  or  as  Deacons  elect  one  from  among  them- 
selves, and  call  him  Arch-deacon.  Indeed,  what  can  a  Bishop 
do,  that  a  Presbyter  may  not  rio,  except  ORDINATION?" 
Then,  after  saying  that  the  same  practice  existed  in  all  places, 
he  adds  :  "  Wherever  the  Bishop  be,  whether  at  Rome,  or  Eu- 
gubium,  or  Constantinople,  or  Rheginm,  or  Alexandria,  or 
Tanais,  he  is  of  the  same  degree,  and  of  the  same  Priesthood ; 
FOR  ALL  are  SUCCESSORS  OF  THE  Apostles."*  And  after 
some  remarks  concerning  the  Roman  custom,  he  adds  :  "  Let 
them  know  wherefore  Deacons  were  established  ;  let  them 
read  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  remember  their  condition. 
Presbyter  is  a  title  of  age  ;  Bishop,  of  office.  Wherefore, 
[in  the  Epistles,]  to  Timothy  and  Titus,  is  mention  made  of 
the  ordination  of  Bishops  and  Deacons,  but  not  of  Presbyters? 

*  In  his   54lh  Ep.  he  condemns   the  Montanists,   for  denying  that  the 
Bishops  are  the  Apostles'  successors,  ami  the  first  order  of  the  clergy. 


opinion  of  jerome  on  episcopacy.  201 

Because  in  the  Bishop  the  Presbyter  is  contained. 
We  are  advanced  from  the  less  to  the  greater ;  if,  therefore, 
the  Deacon  is  ordained  from  among  Presbyters,  then  is  the 
Presbyter  the  least ;  but  if  the  Presbyter  is  ordained  from 
among  Deacons,  then  is  the  Presbyter  of  a  higher  order  of 
the  Priesthood.  And  we  know  from  Apostolical  tradition^ 
taken  from  the  Old  Testament,  that  what  Aaron  and  his  sons 
and  the  Levites  have  been  in  the  Temple,  the  same  the  Bishops, 
and  the  Presbyters,  and  the  Deacons  may  claim  as  their  own  in 
the  Church:'* 

The  other  passage  from  Jerome,  on  which  reliance  is  placed 
by  the  objector,  is  from  his  Comment  on  Titus  i.  7,  where, 
after  some  remarks  on  the  necessary  qualifications  of  a  Bish- 
op, he  applies  the  same  to  Presbyters,  and  goes  on  to  say  : — 
"  The  same,  therefore,  is  a  Presbyter,  who  also  is  a  Bishop ; 
for  before,  by  the  instigation  of  the  devil,  parties  were  formed 
in  religion,  and  it  was  said  by  the  people,  I  am  of  Paul,  and 
I  of  Apollos,  and  I  of  Cephas,  the  Churches  were  governed 
by  the  Council  of  Presbyters.  But  after  some  began  to  con- 
sider those  which  he  had  baptized  to  be  his  own,  not  Christ's, 
it  was  decreed  throughout  the  whole  world,  that  one  be  elect- 
ed, who  should  be  put  over  the  rest  of  the  Presbyters,  to 
whom  the  care  of  all  the  Church  should  pertain ;  and  thus 
the  seeds  of  schism  were  taken  away.  If  any  one  esteems 
it  not  of  Scripture,  but  to  be  our  opinion,  that  Bishops  and 
Presbyters  are  one  ;  this  being  a  title  of  age,  that  of  office  ; 
he  is  referred  to  the  language  of  the  Apostle  to  the  Philip- 
pians."  Here  follow  the  same  passages  quoted  in  the  Epistle 
to  Evangelum,  referred  to  above,  when  he  goes  on  to  say  : — 
*'  This  much,  therefore,  that  we  might  show  the  same  to  have 
been  Presbyters  among  the  ancients,  who  also  were  Bishops; 
but  by  degrees,  that  every  sprout  of  dissension  might  be  rooted 


*  The  same  idea  is  brought  out  in  another  Epistle,  Ad  Nepol. 
18 


202  OPINION  OF  JEROME  ON  EPISCOPACY. 

out,  all  the  authority  was  conferred  upon  one  alone.  As, 
therefore,  they  know  the  Presbyter  himself  to  be  in  subjec- 
tion, by  the  usage  of  the  Church,  who  of  himself  may  have 
been  chief,  so  the  Bishops  themselves,  more  by  the  introduc- 
tion of  a  new  custom,  than  by  virtue  of  the  Lord's  direction, 
are  greater  than  the  Presbyters,  who  have  the  right  to  rule 
the  Church  in  common." 

On  these  passages,  the  following  remarks  should  be  made  : 
(1.)  Jerome  does  not  say  that  the  office  of  Presbyter  is  the 
same  as  that  of  Bishop  ;  but  he  expressly  asserts,  that  the 
name  Presbyter  did  not  originally  signify  office,  but  age.  (2.)  He 
does  not  deny  the  existence  of  the  second  grade  of  the 
ministry,  now  called  Presbyter,  at  the  time  the  Apostle  wrote 
the  Epistles  above  referred  to  ;  but  indirectly  admits  their  ex- 
istence, by  giving  as  a  reason  why  this  rank  is  not  mentioned, 
that  the  Presbyter  is  inclvded  in  the  Bishop.  (3.)  He  does  not 
say,  that  the  office  of  Presbyter  was  ever  the  same  as  that  of 
Bishop.  (4.)  And  though  he  did  not  consider  the  office  of 
Presbyter,  as  ancient  as  that  of  Bishop,  it  is  clear  that  he 
considered  it  Apostolic.  (5.)  He  expressly  says,  that  the 
power  of  Ordination,  even  at  Alexandria,  was  never  vested  in 
the  office  of  Presbyter.  (6.)  He  plainly  declares,  that  the 
offices  of  Bishop,  Presbyter,  and  Deacon,  in  the  Christian 
Church,  are  as  distinct,  and  are  related  to  each  other,  as  were 
those  of  High  Priest,  Priest,  and  Levite  in  the  Jewish  Church. 
(7  )  And  finally,  he  tells  us,  that  all,  who  in  his  day  held  the 
office  of  Bishop,  were  successors  of  the  Apostles,  that  is,  in  the 
government  of  the  Churches. 

We  have  given  the  above  quotations,  that  our  readers  may 
see  what  were  the  real  sentiments  of  Jerome  on  the  subject 
of  Apostolic  Order.  That  he  differed  from  those  of  his  own 
time,  he  himself  admits  ;  and  we  know  this  to  be  a  fact,  be- 
cause it  is  admitted  by  all  who  have  examined  the  subject, 
that,  "  No  Church  without  a  Bishop,  has  been  a  fact  as  well  as 


TESTIMONY  OF  SEVERUS,  OF  ASHMONIA.  203 

a  maxim,  since  the  days  of  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian,"  A.  D. 
175.* 

After  allowing  all  the  weight  to  the  testimony  of  Jerome, 
which  can  be  claimed  for  it,  it  still  remains  true,  that  accord- 
ing to  his  own  account  of  the  matter,  the  sole  and  exclusive 
power  of  ordination  belonged  to  the  Apostles  and  their  suc- 
cessors, according  to  the   testimony  of  the  primitive  Fathers. 

But  there  is  still  another  objection  to  the  testimony  of  Je- 
rome ;  we  know  the  facts  were  not  as  stated  by  Caius,  in  re- 
gard to  the  practice  in  Alexandria.  This  will  appear  from 
the  testimony  of  the  great  Ecclesiastical  Historian  of  the 
Copts,  Severus,  Bishop  of  Ashmonia,  whose  station  in  the 
Church  gave  him  access  to  all  its  records,  and  who  expressly 
states  that  he  had  consulted  the  Greek  and  Coptic  Monuments, 
which  in  his  time  were  preserved  in  the  monastery  of  St. 
Macarius. 

The  statement  of  Caius  is,  that  "  in  Alexandria,  from  St. 
Mark  to  Heraclas,  the  Presbyters  chose  one  from  among  them- 
selves,^'' and  ordained  him.  Now  this  statement  is  not  true,  as 
a  matter  of  history.  The  Bishops  from  St.  Mark  to  Heraclas 
and  Dionysius,  were  : 

1.  St.  Mark, 60 

2.  Hananias,  ,  .  .  .  .  68 

3.  Melianas, 86 

4.  Cerdo, 98 

5.  Aprimus,        .         .         .         .         .         .109 

6.  Justus,        ......         121 

7.  Eumenius, 132 

8.  Marcianus, 142 

9.  Claudianus,    .         .         .         ,         .         .152 

10.  Agrippinus,         .  .  .  .         .  166 

11.  Julianus, 178 


*  Gib.  Dec.  and  Fall.  vol.  I.  p.  272,  a.  111. 


204  TESTIMONY  OF  SEVERUS,  OF  ASHMONIA. 

12.  Demetrius,         .         ...         .         .         188 

13.  Hierocles, 230 

14.  Dionysius,  .....         246 
Concerning  some  of  these,  we  make  the  following  extracts 

from  Severus.     The  numbers  refer  to  the  preceding  list. 

(2.)  Anianus  or  Hananias,  (called  by  Eusebius,  Ananius.) 
"  When  St.  Mark,"  says  Severus,  "  received  information  of 
their  design,  [viz.  the  design  of  the  Heathens  to  put  him  to 
death,]  he  constituted  Anianus  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  and 
likewise  three  Presbyters  and  seven  Deacons  ;  which  eleven 
persons  he  instituted  for  the  service  and  confirmation  of  the 
faithful  brethren.  He,  himself,  departing  thence,  went  to  the 
Pentapolis,  and  remained  there  two  years,  preaching  and  or- 
daining, or  constituting  Bishops,  Presbyters,  and  Deacons,  in 
all  the  provinces  thereof." 

(4.)  Cerdo.  "  The  Priests  and  Bishops  who  had  been  be- 
fore him  in  that  region,  having  notice  that  the  Patriarch  was 
dead,  assembled  with  grief  in  the  city  of  Alexandria,  and 
having  consulted  with  its  orthodox  inhabitants,  cast  lots  to  de- 
cide who  should  be  worthy  to  hold  the  See  of  St.  Mark,  the 
Evangelist  after  Melianus.  And  by  the  aid  of  our  Lord  Je- 
sus Christ,  their  minds  were  agreed  upon  a  chosen  man  who 
feared  God,  and  whose  name  was  Cerdo." 

(9.)  Claudianus,  [called  in  the  Coptic  catalogues  Kelasdi- 
anos,  and  by  Eusebius,  Celadion.] 

"  There  was  in  those  days  a  man  among  the  people  [i.  e. 
a  layman]  who  loved  God,  and  whose  name  was  Claudianus. 
Him  the  orthodox  people,  assembling  with  the  Bishops  who 
were  in  those  days  in  Alexandria,  took  and  constituted  or  or- 
dained Patriarch,  and  placed  him  in  the  Evangelical  See,  and 
he  was  beloved  by  all  the  people."  Several  instances  are  re- 
corded of  laymen  thus  chosen.  Thus  Aprimus  and  Deme- 
trius, numbers  5  and  12,  were  also  elected  from  among  the 
laity. 


TESTIMONY   OF   SEVERUS,  OF  ASHMONIA.  205 

(11.)  JuLiANus.  "There  was  a  certain  Presbyter,  a  wise 
man  who  had  studied  the  Holy  Scriptures  with  great  diligence, 
whose  name  was  Julianus,  and  who  walked  in  the  way  of 
continence,  religion,  and  meekness.  The  Bishops  therefore 
being  assembled  in  council,  and  at  the  same  time  the  ortho- 
dox people  in  the  city  of  Alexandria,  and  making  diligent  in- 
quiry among  the  whole  people,  they  found  no  man  like  this 
Presbyter.  Wherefore  hands  being  laid  upon  him,  they  con- 
stituted him  Patriarch." 

We  may  here  remark,  that  in  Egypt  the  custom  anciently 
was  and  now  is,  to  have  a  three  fold  imposition  of  hands  in 
the  creation  of  Bishops.  The  votes  of  the  people  were  given 
and  numbered  by  lifting  up  of  hands,  and  confirmed  by  the 
laying  on  of  hands  of  the  principal  laity.  The  Presbyters 
laid  their  hands  twice  on  the  head  of  the  person  elected,  first 
in  giving  their  votes,  and  afterwards  their  solemn  approbation 
of  his  admission  to  the  Episcopate.  The  Bishops  also  twice 
laid  on  their  hands,  first  to  confirm  the  suflrage,  and  finally  at 
his  consecration.  The  following  is  the  order  prescribed  in 
the  ancient  constitutions  of  the  Church  in  Alexandria.  "  Let 
the  bishop  be  constituted  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  all  giv- 
ing their  consent  for  his  promotion,  and  the  people  and  the 
Priests  attesting  for  him.  Let  the  Bishops  who  are  present  to 
lay  their  hands  on  him,  wash  their  hands  that  they  may  then 
consecrate  him,  the  people  standing  by  with  silent  reverence, 
and  let  them  raise  their  hands  over  him,  saying,  we  lay  our 
hands  upon  this  chosen  servant  of  God,  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  constitute 
him  into  a  good  and  stable  order  of  the  one  unspotted  Church 
of  the  living  invisible  God."  It  thus  goes  on  to  speak  of  the 
final  act  of  consecration,  in  the  following  words  :  "  After  these 
things,  let  the  presiding  Bishop  (primus  Episcopus  ex  illis) 
lay  his  hands  upon  him,  and  pronounce  the  formula  of  conse- 
cration or  ordination  ;  and  let  all  the  people  say.  Amen.  Then 
18* 


206  MISTAKE   OF   SELDEN. 

let  all  the  Bishops  give  him  the  kiss,  and  let  all  the  Priests 
and  people  say,  Worthy,  Worthy,  Worthy  ;  and  let  them  all 
give  him  the  kiss,  and  pray  that  he  may  have  peace  and 
health." 

This  also  furnishes  an  answer  to  another  argument  some- 
times urged  against  this  conclusion.  During  the  troubles  in 
the  reign  of  Charles  I.  an  attempt  was  made  to  prove  that  the 
Church  of  Alexandria,  founded  by  St.  Mark,  was  originally 
Presbyterian.  An  extract  from  the  Annals  of  Eutychius,  who 
succeeded  Christodulus,  A.  D.  933,  as  the  Melchite  Patriarch 
of  Alexandria,  was  employed  for  this  purpose.  Selden,  who 
made  this  discovery,  had  not  a  profound  knowledge  of  Arabic, 
nor  was  he  well  versed  in  Ecclesiastical  History.  His  trans- 
lation, therefore,  was  inaccurate  in  several  points  which  vi- 
tally affected  his  argument ;  and  he  seems  not  to  have  been 
aware,  that  the  ancient  records  of  the  Egyptian  Church  were 
inaccessible  to  Eutychius,  and  that  his  testimony  is  of  no 
value,  excepting  with  regard  to  the  history  of  the  Melchites.* 
These  facts  show  most  conclusively,  that  both  Caius  and  Eu- 
tychius were  mistaken,  and  that  at  Alexandria,  as  elsewhere, 
none  but  Bishops  ordained.  And  this  Jerome  himself  allows, 
in  opposition  to  the  authority  he  had  quoted,  if  indeed  it  is 
quoted  correctly. 

There  are  few  other  places  referred  to,  as  authority  for  or- 
dination by  Presbyters.  Thus  it  is  sometimes  said,  that 
"  Hermas  uses  the  terms  Bishop  and  Presbyter  promiscuously, 
and  speaks  of  Presbyters  as  presiding  over  the  Church  at 
Rome."t  This  is  a  mistake,  as  Hermas,  who  wrote  in  Latin, 
says  nothing  of  Presbyters,  and  seldom  speaks  of  Bishops. 

Also  that  "  Clement,  of  Alexandria,  sometimes  speaks  of 

♦For  the  facts  in  regard  to  the  testimony  of  Severn?,  and  the  mistakes 
of  Selden,  we  are  indebted  to  the  Rev.  Samuel  Farmar  Jarvis,  D.  D., 
LL.  D.,   one  of  the  best  ecclesiastical  historians  of  modern  days. 

tProf.  Pond,  of  Bangor,  in  The  Church,  \^.  G2. 


MISTAKES  OF  OTHERS.  '  207 

Bishop  and  Presbyter  as  the  same."*  Never  having  been 
able  to  find  the  place  where  Clement  says  this,  we  apprehend 
this  is  also  an  error. 

Also,  that  "  Eusebius  affirms  that  in  his  day,  evangelists 
sometimes  ordained  Pastors. f  The  facts  related  by  Eusebius 
in  the  chapter  referred  to,  took  place  in  the  days  of  Quadra- 
tus,  who  lived,  not  in  the  time  of  Eusebius,  that  is,  in  the  be- 
ginning of  the  fourth  century,  as  is  affirmed,  but  in  the  be- 
ginning of  the  second  century,  200  years  before ;  and  the 
"evangelists"  were  those  "who,"  according  to  Eusebius, 
"held  l\iQ first  rank  in  the  Apostolic  succession, "if  that  is,  in 
the  language  of  Eusebius,  who  were  Bishops. 

3.  To  the  Apostles  belonged  the  sole  power  of  administer- 
ing confirmation.  By  confirmation,  we  mean  a  right  which 
existed  in  the  Apostolic  Church,  and  which  consisted  in  the 
laying  on  of  an  Apostle's  hands,  upon  those  who  had  received 
the  ordinance  of  baptism.  This  is  fairly  implied  in  Hebrews 
vi.  2  :  "  the  doctrine  of  baptism,  and  of  the  laying  on  of 
HANDS,  and  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  of  eternal 
judgment."  There  can  be  no  doubt,  that  baptism  and  the 
"  laying  on  of  hands"  spoken  of  in  this  passage,  are  entirely 
distinct ;  as  much  so  as  the  resurrection  and  eternal  judgment. 
The  order  in  which  these  things  are  mentioned,  also  compels 
us  to  believe,  that  as  the  judgment  follows  the  resurrection, 
so  "  the  laying  on  of  hands"  succeeds  to  baptism.  But  this 
text  furnishes  no  evidence  as  to  who  performed  the  rite,  and 
w^e  must,  therefore,  have  recourse  to  other  portions  of  Scrip- 
ture to  determine  the  question. 

When  Philip  went  down  to  Samaria  and  preached  the  gos- 
pel, many  believed  and  were  baptized.  As  soon  as  intelli- 
gence of  this  event  reached  Jerusalem,  two  Apostles,  Peter 

*  Prof.  Pond,  of  Bangor,  in  The  Church,  p.  Go. 
tib.  6G,  andEuseb.  iii.  c.  37.  |  H.  iii.  37. 


208  SCRIPTURE  TESTIMONY, 

and  John,  were  sent  down  lo  Samaria,  "  for  as  yet  the  Holy 
Ghost  had  fallen  upon  none  of  the  Samaritans,  only  they  had 
been  baptized^  (Acts  viii.  16.)  These  Apostles,  therefore, 
"  prayed  and  laid  their  hands  on  those  who  had  been  baptized^ 

AND   THEY   RECEIVED   THE   HoLY    GhOST."       (viii.    15,  17.)      So 

also  at  Ephesiis,  when  Paul  "  laid  his  hands  on  those  who  had 
been  baptized,  they  received  the  Holy  Ghost."  (xix.  6.) 
Here,  then,  is  plainly  the  doctrine  or  fact  of  the  laying  on  of 
hands  subsequent  to  baptism,  existing  at  Samaria  and  Ephesus, 
and  as  it  is  agreed  that  the  Apostles  had  an  uniform  system 
of  organization,  we  are  compelled  to  believe  the  same  prac- 
tice existed  in  the  other  Apostolic  Churches,  although  there 
is  no  account  of  it  in  Scripture.  There  is,  however,  mention 
of  something  which  appears  to  be  equivalent  to  it,  and,  as  we 
apprehend,  was  identical  with  it. 

After  Paul  and  Barnabas  had  preached  the  gospel  in  seve- 
ral cities  of  Asia,  they  returned  "  to  Lystra  and  Iconium,  and 
Antioch,  confirming  the  souls  of  the  disciples,  [that  is,  those 
who  had  before  been  made  such  by  baptism,]  exhorting  them 
to  continue  in  the  faith ;  ordaining  Presbyters  for  them  in  ev- 
ery Church,  with  prayer  and  fasting.''^  (Acts  xiv.  22,  23.) 
This  confirmation,  therefore,  in  whatever  it  consisted,  was 
something  distinct  from,  and  in  addition  to  preaching,  praying, 
and  the  ordinary  means  of  edifying  the  Church.  Some  time 
subsequent,  and  after  the  great  dissension  at  Antioch,  relative 
to  the  rite  of  circumcision,  Paul  and  Barnabas  returned  again 
to  Antioch,  in  company  with  Judas  and  Silas,  and  after  much 
exhortation  "  confirmed."  (Acts  xv.  32.)  It  is  worthy  of  re- 
mark, that  kai  episterixan  and  confirmed,  is  an  independent 
sentence,  the  narrative  not  informing  us  by  whom  the  confirm- 
ation was  performed,  or  by  whom  received,  and  it  should  also 
be  borne  in  mind,  that  Antioch  is  the  only  place  where  we 
have  any  account  of  confirmation  being  performed  a  second 
time  ;  and  that  the  foregoing  is  the  only  place  in  the  Scrip- 


IN   REGARD   TO   CONFIRMATION.  209 

tures  where  such  a  sentence  occurs.  We  are  led,  therefore, 
to  infer,  that  this  confirmation  was  limited,  for  on  no  other 
hypothesis  can  we  account  for  the  change  of  language  in  this 
place.  And  if  limited,  then  only  such  were  now  confirmed, 
as  had  not  received  the  rite  when  administered  by  Paul  and 
Barnabas  sometime  previous. 

Leaving  Antioch,  Paul  passed  "  through  Syria  and  Cilicia, 
confirming  the  Churches,"  (xv.  41  ;)  and  still  later,  passed 
through  the  "  country  in  Galatia  and  Phrygia,  in  order,  con- 
firming ALL  THE  DISCIPLES."  (xviii.  23.)  That  the  con- 
firmation  here  mentioned  does  not  signify  any  act  of  the  mind, 
an  addition  to,  or  strengthening  of  the  faith,  but  some  outward 
and  external  rite,  is  evident,  both  from  the  meaning  of  the 
word,  and  from  its  use  by  the  sacred  historians. 

(1.)  The  word  ejnsterizo  signifies  literally  to  fix  firmly  in  or 
on  some  place,  and  hence  to  lean  upon  or  to  be  supported 
on,  and  is  only  used  in  this  latter  sense  in  the  Greek  ver- 
sion of  the  Old  Testament,*  and  is  not  used  in  the  New,  ex- 
cept in  the  four  passages  to  which  we  have  referred. 

(2.)  Paul  evidently  contrasts  this  confirmation  wi^h  mental 
strengthening,  or  addition  to  the  faith,  and  reckons  this  as  one 
means  of  obtaining  it.  After  he  left  Antioch  in  company 
with  Silas,  (Acts  xv.  40,  41,)  he  passed  through  various  cities, 
"  confirming  [the  members  of]  the  Churches,"  delivering  "  to 
them  the  decrees  of  the  Apostles  and  Presbyters  to  keep." 
And  so  "  were  the  Churches  established  in  the  f.a.ith," 
(xvi.  5,)  that  is,  by  the  praying,  preaching,  exhortation,  and 
confiirmation  of  the  Apostles,  of  which  the  historian  had  just 
given  an  account.  We  have,  therefore,  the  laying  on  of  an 
Apostle's  hands  on  those  who  had  received  baptism  in  the 
Churches  of  Samaria  and  Ephesus,  and  something  called 
CONFIRMATION,  wliicli  was  administered  to  them  who  had  been 

*  See  2  Sam.  i.  G  :  Is.  xxxvi.  6. 


210  SCRIPTURE   TESTIMONY, 

baptized  in  the  Churches  of  Derbe,  Lystra,  Iconium,  An- 
tioch,  Syria,  Cilicia,  Galatia,  and  Phrygia.  Now,  as  the 
Apostolic  system  was  uniform,  both  of  these  must  have  ex- 
isted in  all  the  Churches,  and  hence  we  are  compelled  to  be- 
lieve, either  that  the  same  rite  is  intended  in  both  cases,  or 
else  that  there  were  two  distinct  rites  performed  upon  all  per- 
sons in  the  Apostolic  Church,  who  had  received  the  sacra- 
ment of  baptism.  The  first  conclusion  is  of  itself  the  most 
probable,  and  is  strengthened  by  the  fact,  that  both  were  ad- 
ministered only  by  an  Apostle,  upon  only  such  as  had  been 
baptized,  and  that  there  is  no  intimation  that  both  were  ever 
administered  in  the  same  Church.  It  is,  therefore,  certain, 
that  if  they  were  not  like  each  other,  they  were  unlike  every 
thing  else. 

The  same  inference  must  also  be  drawn  from  the  parallel 
language  in  Acts,  (xv.  and  xvi. )  2  Corinthians,  (i.  21,22,) 
and  Ephesians,  (i.  13,  14  ;  iv.  30.)  Thus  in  Acts,  the  historian, 
after  giving  an  account  of  the  acts  and  labors  of  the  Apostles, 
adds,  "  so  were  the  Churches  established  in  the  faith."  (xvi.  5.) 
And  Paul  to  the  Corinthians  says,  (2  Ep.  i.  21,)  "he  which 
stahlisheth  us  with  you  in  Christ,  and  hath  anointed  us, 
[chrisas,  '  hath  consecrated  or  set  us  apart  to  the  service  and 
ministry  of  Christ  and  his  gospel,^)*  is  God,  who  hath  also 
sealed  us,  {sphragismenos,  '  hath  set  his  seal  or  mark  upon  uSj 
in  token  of  our  being  genuine  and  approved')  [^Christians  ;Y{ 
and  given  the  earnest  [arrabona,  '  the  pledge,  scil.  something 
given  to  ratify  a  contract')X  of  the  Spirit  in  our  hearts." 
The  whole  passage  most  evidently  contains  a  reference  to  the 
performance  of  some  external  rite,  by  which  the  recipient 
ivas  consecrated  or  set  apart  to  the  worship  of  God  through 
Christ,  which  was  to  them,  not  the  evidence  of  their  Christ- 

♦  Rob.  900,  and  coiup.  chrismas,  p.  899.  f^ob.  800. 

:f  Hob.  100. 


IN  REGARD  TO    CONFIRMATION.  211 

ian  character,  but  a  token  of  it,  and  not  the  Spirit,  but  a 
PLEDGE  of  it  in  the  heart. 

Of  the  same  purport  is  the  language  in  Ephesians,  (i.  13, 
14,)  '^  after  ye  believed  in  Christ,  ye  were  sealed  with 
the  Holy  Spirit  of  promise  ;  which  is  the  pledge  of  our 
inheritance,  until  the  redemption  of  the  purchased  posses- 
sion ;"  where  believing  and  being  sealed  are  so  removed  from 
each  other,  as  to  be  evidently  distinct  things.  It  is  needless 
for  us  to  dwell  upon  the  coincidence  of  thought  in  these  va- 
rious passages.  The  reference  is  so  direct,  the  allusion  so 
distinct,  as  to  be  apparent  to  the  most  casual  reader.  Here 
then,  are  several  presumptions,  arising  from  different  sources, 
tending  to  the  same  point,  uncontradicted  by  any  evidence 
whatever,  all  coinciding  to  prove  the  existence  of  a  rite  called 
confirmation  in  the  Apostolic  Church,  which  was  performed 
by  the  imposition  of  the  hands  of  an  Apostle,  on  those  re- 
cently baptized  ;  and  according  to  the  rules  of  evidence  by 
which  we  are  guided  in  these  inquiries,  we  may  say  the  ex- 
istence of  the  rite  is  proved. 

The  language  made  use  of  by  Paul  in  his  Epistle  to  the 
Corinthians,  was  used  in  the  Church  immediately  after  the 
age  of  the  Apostles,  to  signify  Confirmation.  Thus  Clement, 
of  Alexandria,  in  the  second  century,  in  a  work  entitled, 
"  What  rich  man  shall  be  saved  V  gives  an  account  of  a  young 
man  who  was  first  baptized  and  then  sealed  with  the  Lord's 
seal  as  a  perfect  safeguard*  To  this  we  add  a  single  quota- 
tion from  the  epistle  of  Cornelius,  Bishop  of  Rome,  about 
A.  D.  250,  to  Fabius,  concerning  the  heresy  of  Novatian. 
According  to  the  account  there  given,  Novatian  was  baptized 
in  sick  bed,  but  who,  when  he  recovered,  "  neglected  to  be 
sealed  by  the  Bishop.^'1[  The  rite  of  confirmation,  however, 
is  more  accurately  described  by  Cyprian  in  the  same  century. 

*  Eiiseb.  iii.  23.  t  Euseb.  Ecc.  Hist.  iii.  43. 


212  THE  ANCIENTS  ON  CONFIRMATION. 

He  says  :  "  those  who  have  been  baptized  in  the  Church,  are 
brought  to  the  President  of  the  Church,  that  by  our  prayer 
and  imposition  of  hands,  they  may  receive  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  be  consummated  with  the  Lord's  seaL*  But  we  learn 
from  Tertullian,  in  the  second  century,  who  was  the  instructor 
of  Cyprian,  the  nature  of  this  rite,  with  equal  certainty.  He 
informs  us  that  "  hands  were  imposed  upon  those  who  had 
been  baptized,  with  prayer  and  invocation  of  the  Holy 
Ghost."!  All  of  which  so  accurately  describes  this  rite,  as 
to  leave  no  doubt  of  its  existence. 

4.  The  Apostles,  and  those  to  whom  the  Apostles  had  com- 
mitted Apostolic  authority,  had  the  rule  over  Presbyter- 
bishops  and  Deacons.  St.  Paul  exhorts  the  Hebrews,  to 
"  obey  them  that  have  rule  over  them."  (Heb.  xiii.  17.)  And 
Timothy  was  besought  to  abide  at  Ephesus,  "  that  he  might 
charge,  or  command\  that  none  teach  other  doctrines,"  (1  Tim. 
i.  .3,)  than  those  he  was  to  "  command  and  teach."  So  also, 
he  was  to  allow  no  man  to  despise  him,  (iv.  11,  12;)  and 
Titus  was  to  exhort  "  and  rebuke  with  all  authority."  (Titus  ii. 
15.)  Timothy  too  was  to  "  count  the  Presbyters  that  ruled 
well,  worthy  of  double  honor,"  (1  Tim.  v.  17,)  and  he  was 
"  not  to  receive  an  accusation,  i.  e.  a  judicial  complaint,^  against 
a  Presbyter,  except  in  the  presence  of^  two  or  three  witnesses," 
(1  Tim.  V.  19  ;)  which  is  proof  that  he  had  authority  over 
Presbyters,  and  must  therefore,  from  the  nature  of  the  case, 
have  been  superior  to  them.  Indeed,  the  whole  tenor  of  the 
language  in  the  Epistle  to  Timothy  and  Titus  so  evidently  au- 
thorizes them  to  speak  in  a  tone  of  authority,  that  nothing  can 
make  it  plainer  than  it  now  is.  The  terms  "■  command,''^  {I 
Tim.  i.  3  ;  ii.  1 1  ;  iv.  17  ;  2  Tim.  ii.  14,)  "  rebuke,"  (1  Tim.  v. 
20;  2   Tim.  iv.  2,)  ''with  all  authority,''  (Titus  ii.  15,)  ''and 

*  Ep.  73.  t  I^e  Bap.  c.  8,  comp.  also  De  Resur.  Car.  c.  8. 

t  Rob.  615.  §  Rob.  436.  ||  Rob.  257,  299. 


OFFICIAL  CHARACTER  OF  APOSTLES.  213 

sharply, ^^  imply  rule,  power,  and  authority,  and  demand  a  cor- 
responding submission,  scbjection,  and  obedience  in  the  per- 
sons over  whom  these  were  to  be  exercised. 

Obedience  to  the  Bishops,  as  the  successors  of  the  Apos- 
tles, is  one  of  the  leading  topics  in  the  epistles  of  Ignatius. 
The  times  in  which  he  lived,  were  full  of  disquiet.  Heresy 
had  begun  to  show  itself,  and  schism  had  become  rampant  in 
many  places.  It  required,  therefore,  a  strong  and  steady  hand 
to  preserve  the  Church  in  quiet.  And  such  a  man  was  Igna- 
tius ;  who,  for  active  zeal  and  ardent  piety,  was  early  called 
to  a  martyr's  grave.  On  his  way  to  his  death,  with  the  evils 
of  the  times  full  in  view,  he  wrote  seven  epistles  to  six  differ- 
ent Churches.  In  all,  a  prominent  topic  is,  obedience  to  the 
Bishop.  Nor  does  he  advise  it  simply  as  a  matter  of  expedi- 
ency, but  urges  it  as  a  matter  of  divine  appointment.  And 
he  must  have  known  whether  it  was  so,  as  he  was  the  disci- 
ple and  pupil  of  St.  John.* 

To  the  Ephesians,  he  says  :t  "  Wherefore  it  becomes  you 
to  run  together,  according  to  the  will  of  your  Bishop,  even 
as  also  ye  do," 

To  the  Magnesians,  he  says  :|  "  It  is  your  duty  also,  not  to 
despise  the  youth  of  your  Bishop,  but  to  yield  all  reverence 
to  him,  according  to  the  power  of  God  the  Father.     As,  also, 

I  perceive  your  holy  Presbyters  do It  is,  therefore, 

fitting  that  we  should  not  only  be  called  Christians,  but  be  so  ; 
as  some  call  a  Bishop  by  the  name,  but  do  all  things  without 
him." 

To  the  Trallians,^  "  It  is,  therefore,  necessary  that  ye  do 
nothing  without  your  Bishop,  even  as  ye  are  wont 

♦Martyr.  Ign.  c.  3.  The  reasons  why  some  of  our  quotations  from  Ig- 
natius are  different  from  the  ordinary  translations,  may  be  seen  in  the 
Appendix. 

tEp.  C.4.  :tCc.  3,  4.  §Cc.  2,  7. 

19 


214  APOSTLES  AND  APOSTOLIC  BISHOPS, 

He  that  is  within  the  altar,  is  pure.  But  he  is  not,  that  doeth 
any  thing  without  the  Bishop,  Presbyters,  and  Deacons." 

To  the  Philadelphians*  "  For  as  many  as  are  of  Christ,  are 

with  their  Bishop I   cried  whilst  I   was  among 

you,  1  spake  with  a  loud  voice.     Give  ear  to  the  Bishop,  and 

to  the  Presbyters,  and  to  the  Deacons See  that  ye 

follow  your  Bishop,  as  Jesus  Christ,  the  Father  ;  and  the 
Presbytery,  as  the  Apostles  ;  and  reverence  the  Deacons,  as 
the  command  of  God." 

To  the  Smyrneans,\  "  He  that  honors  the  Bishop,  shall  be 
honored  of  God." 

And  to  Poly  carp,  he  says  :|  "  Hearken  unto  the  Bishop, 
that  God  may  hearken  unto  you.  My  soul  be  security  for 
those  who  submit  to  their  Bishop,  Presbyters,  and  Deacons." 

The  same  thing  is  also  clearly  apparent  from  other  primi- 
tive writers.  Thus  it  is  said  in  the  account  given  of  the 
martyrdom  of  Ignatius,  A.  D.  109  or  116,  that  "he  governed 
the  Church  of  Antioch  with  all  care."§  So  it  is  said  by  He- 
gessipuSjII  that  James  "  received  the  government  of  the  Church 
at  Jerusalem,  from  the  Apostles."  And  Irenaeusl"  says,  that 
the  Apostles  "  delivered  their  own  place  of  government  to  their 
successors."  And  Tertullian**  tells  us,  that  neither  Presby- 
ters nor  Deacons  might  baptize,  "  without  the  Bishop's  con- 
sent." Towards  the  close  of  this  century,  or  as  early  as 
A.  D.  200,  it  was  directed,!!  that "  A  Presbyter  who,  disregard- 
ing the  Bishop,  should  form  a  separate  congregation,  and 
build  a  separate  altar,  should  be  deposed.  And  that  the  lay- 
men who  followed  him  should  be  excommunicated." 

5.  To  the  Apostles,  and  those  to  whom  they  had  committed 
Apostolic  authority,  belonged  the  exclusive  right  of  disci- 
plining the  Church.     We  have  already  shown  that  the  Apos- 

*Cc.  3,  7,  8,  9.  tC.  9.  XC.(5. 

$  Martyr.  Ign.  c.  1.  ||  Com.  v.  in  Euseb.  ii.  22. 

IT  Adv.  Haer.  iii.  3.  **  De  Bap.  c.  17.  ft  Apos.  Can.  24. 


RULERS  IN  THE  CHURCHES.  215 

ties  had  the  rule  over,  and  of  course,  the  power  of  disciplin- 
ing the  inferior  orders  of  ministers,  and  also,  that  these  inferior 
orders  had  the  oversight  and  inspection  of  the  laity,  or  the 
members  of  the  Church.  Hence,  it  would  necessarily  follow, 
that  the  Apostles  had  the  ultimate  authority  over  the  people, 
if  there  were  no  other  evidence  on  this  subject.  But  this  is 
not  all.  The  strong  case  urged  by  those  who  deny  the  official 
authority  of  the  Apostles,  is  that  of  the  offending  Corinthian, 
(1  Cor.  V,;)  but  as  we  considered  this  account  at  considerable 
length,  when  speaking  of  the  powers  and  duties  of  the  mtm- 
hers  of  the  Apostolic  Church*  we  shall  here  only  repeat  the 
conclusions  warranted  by  that  examination.  These  were, 
that  the  judgment  of  the  Apostle  was  a  sentence  of  excom- 
munication, and  that  the  only  duty  of  the  Church  was,  to  carry 
that  sentence  into  execution. 

The  language  of  Paul  to  Timothy,  is  still  more  emphatic. 
Speaking  of  Hymeneus  and  Alexander,  he  says,  "  I  have 
DELIVERED  THEM  UNTO  Satan,  that  they  may  learn  not  to  blas- 
pheme.''^ (1  Tim.  i.  20.)  And  to  Titus,  he  says,  "A  man 
that  is  an  heretic,  after  the  first  and  second  admonition,  re- 
ject," (iii.  10,)  which  being  spoken  only  of  those  who  were 
in  the  Church,  necessarily  implies,  that  he  was  to  cast  them 
out  of  the  Church.  The  whole  tenor  of  the  epistles  sustains 
this  opinion.  The  Romans  were  directed  to  avoid  all  who 
brought  in  dissensions  and  contrary  doctrines,  (xvi.  17,)  and 
the  Thessalonians  were  commanded  to  withdraw  themselves 
from  every  one  that  walked  disorderly,  and  to  have  no  com- 
pany with  them.  (2  Thess.  iii.  6,  14.)  John  also  commands 
those  to  whom  his  epistle  was  addressed,  not  to  receive  those 
into  their  houses  who  brought  not  the  doctrine  he  taught,  nor 
to  bid  them  God  speed.     (2  John  i.  10,  11.) 

The  language  of  Paul  to  the  Corinthians,  is  still  more  au- 

*Ante  p.  138. 


216  APOSTLES   DISCIPLINED  THE   CHURCH, 

thoritative.  "  Shall  I  come  to  you  with  a  rod  of  scourging* 
or  in  love  ?"  (]  Cor.  iv.  21.)  "  The  Lord  hath  given  us  out 
authority  for  edification,  and  not  for  your  destruction."  (2  Cor. 
X.  8.)  And  "  I  write  to  them  that  heretofore  have  sinned, 
and  to  all  others,  that  if  I  come  again,  /  will  not  spared"* 
(2  Cor.  xiii.  2.)  If  Paul  did  not  possess  the  power  of  disci- 
plining the  Churches,  this  must  be  the  language  of  vain  dec- 
lamation, or  bold  usurpation.  We  are  authorized,  therefore,  to 
say,  that  he  did  possess  it,  and  hence,  that  to  the  Apostles  be- 
longed the  exclusive  right  of  disciplining  the  Church. 

It  is,  however,  contended  by  many  moderns,  that  the  whole 
discipline  of  the  Church  resided  in  the  members,  not  in  the 
officers,  but  such  persons  should  bear  in  mind,  that  whatever 
the  Apostle's  did,  they  had  a  right  to  do  ;  that  the  acknowl- 
edged uniformity  in  the  Constitution  of  the  Apostolic  Churches., 
requires  us  to  conclude  that  whatever  they  did  in  one  Church, 
that  they  also  did  in  every  other  Church,  and  as  there  is  no 
mention  of  any  co-operation  on  the  part  of  the  people  in  the 
case  above  recited,  we  must  necessarily  infer,  that  to  the  Apos- 
tles, and  those  on  whom  they  had  conferred  Apostolic  author- 
ity, devolved  the  exclusive  power  of  disciplining  the  Churches. 
Nor  is  it  necessary  to  show,  that  they  did  this  by  virtue  of 
their  Apostolic  office,  for  if  they,  and  those  to  whom  they  had 
given  Apostolic  powers,  exercised  this  right,  and  if  it  can  not 
be  shown  that  others,  also,  exercised  it,  then  it  follows  of  ne- 
cessity, that  they  did  it  by  virtue  of  their  office.  Nor  does  it 
devolve  upon  us  to  show,  that  there  were  any  inferior  officers 
in  the  Churches  where  this  discipline  was  exercised,  as  the 
admitted  uniformity  of  the  Apostolic  Churches,  is  a  guaranty 
for  that. 

6.  It  was  the  right  and  duty  of  the  Apostles,  and  those  on 
whom  they  had  conferred  Apostolic  authority,  to  preside  in 

*  Rob.  734. 


AND  PRESIDED  IN  COUNCILS.  217 

all  councils,  and  to  declare  the  sentiments  of  the  council. 
The  account  in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  Acts  affords  sufficient 
proof  of  this  point.  The  decrees  of  that  council  were  "  the 
decrees  of  Apostles  and  Presbyters,"  (xvi.  4,)  though  James 
alone  "gave  sentence."  (xv.  19.)  It  follows,  therefore,  that 
James  was  only  the  organ  of  the  council,  in  declaring  their 
opinion,  and  it  would  be  an  unheard  of  thing  if  it  should  be 
done  by  any  other  than  the  presiding  officer.  James,  who 
Avas  an  Apostle,  presided  al  that  time,  and  though  this  is  the 
only  instance  of  the  kind  recorded  in  Scripture,  is  conclusive 
evidence  of  the  Apostolic  practice. 

In  addition  to  this,  it  should  be  remembered,  that  all  anti- 
quity declares  St.  James  to  have  been  the  first  Bishop  of  Je- 
rusalem. Some  evidence  of  this  has  already  been  given  under 
a  former  head,  and  more  will  be  presented.* 

7.  In  every  Apostolic  Church,  there  was  one  Apostle,  or 
person  endued  with  Apostolic  powers,  having  under  him  a 
plurality  of  Presbyter-bishops  and  Deacons.  This,  as  we 
have  already  remarked,  is  an  important  and  fundamental  ques- 
tion touching  the  Constitution  of  the  Apostolic  Church.  It  is 
therefore  necessary  that  we  examine  it  somewhat  in  detail. 

(1.)  In  the  Church  at  Jerusalem,  we  have  seen  that  there 
was  one  Apostle,  St.  James,  and  the  narrative  in  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  shows  that  there  were  many  Presbyters  and 
Deacons  in  that  Church.  And  this  is  said  to  have  been  the 
model  Church,  after  which  all  others  were  formed. |  Hence, 
then,  if  other  Churches  were  modeled  after  this,  there  must 
have  been  one  Apostle,  or  person  clothed  with  Apostolic 
powers,  in  every  Church,  having  under  him  a  plurality  of 
Presbyter-bishops  and  Deacons.  Besides,  when  we  have 
proved  the  existence  of  these  in  one  Church,  the  admitted 
uniformity  of  the   Apostolic  Church  requires   us  to  suppose 

*  Ante  pp.  18S.  t  ^^eis.  Ecc.  Hist.  Div.  1,  §  23. 

19* 


218  ONE  APOSTOLIC  BISHOP, 

they  existed  in  all.     But  we  are  not  permitted  to  rest  here,  as 
there  is  much  more  evidence  to  be  examined. 

(2.)  Titus,  whom  Paul  calls  an  Apostle,  (2  Cor.  viii.  23,)  was 
possessed  of  Apostolic  authority  in  Crete.  He  alone  was  "  to 
ordain  Presbyters  in  every  city,"  (Tit.  i.  5,)  and  the  better  to 
prepare  him  for  that  business,  Paul  gives  him  directions  con- 
cerning the  qualifications  and  character  of  the  persons  he 
should  ordain.  But  the  power  of  ordaining  was  not  the  only 
power  conferred  upon  this  Apostle.  He  was  to  "  exhort  and 
rebuke  with  all  authority,"  (ii.  15,)  and  if  necessary  to  do  it, 
*'  sharply,  yea  to  stop  their  mouths,  i.  e.  to  put  them  to  si- 
lence;''* by  which  we  understand,  that  he  was  to  deprive 
them  of  "  the  authority  or  license  to  preach,"  which  they  ob- 
tained at  their  ordination.  He  alone  was  to  reject  heretics, 
(iii.  10,)  and  was  to  suffer  no  man  to  despise  him,  (ii.  15.) 
"We  see  then,  that  in  Crete,  there  was  one  Apostle  or  person 
endowed  with  Apostolic  powers,  with  authority  to  ordain  and 
depose  Presbyter-bishops,  and  therefore  Deacons,  and  with 
all  disciplinary  powers  over  the  whole  Church.| 

(3.)  At  Ephesus  we  find  Timothy,  who  was  also  an  Apos- 
tle, possessed  of  Apostolic  powers,  quite  as  extensive  as  those 
of  Titus,  in  Crete.  To  Timothy,  who  was  a  young  man, 
(1  Tim.  iv.  12,)  very  particular  directions  were  given  con- 
cerning the  qualifications  of  Presbyter-bishops  and  Deacons, 
and  various  other  topics,  "  that  he  might  know  how  he  ought 
to  conduct  himself  in  the  Church  of  God-^'X  But  after  all,  he 
was  "  to  lay  hands  suddenly  on  no  man,"  (1  Tim.  v.  22,)  was 
not  to  ordain  without  due  consideration.  His  authority  also 
included  the  supervision,  trial,  and  judging  of  inferior  orders  of 
the  ministry.  He  was  ^'  to  charge  some,  that  they  teach  no 
other  doctrine,"  (1  Tim.  i.  3  ;)  he  was  to  count  the  Presby- 
ters "who  ruled  well,  worthy  of  double  honor,"  (1  Tim.  v. 

»  Tit.  i.  10,  13.     Rob.  31G.  f  See  Ante.  pp.  175,  189—199. 

\  1  Tun.  iii.  15.     Rob.  54. 


IN   EVERY  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  219 

17  ;)  and  "  not  to  receive  an  accusation  against  a  Presbyter, 
except  in  the  presence  of  two  or  three  witnesses."  (1  Tim. 
V.  19.)* 

It  has  been  objected,  that  Timothy  had  no  regular  charge  at 
Ephesus,  that  he  was  left  there  only  for  a  short  period,  and 
that  his  residence  there  was  only  temporary.  But  were  this 
objection  sound,  it  would  not  affect  the  question  of  his  superi- 
ority over  Presbyter-bishops  and  Deacons.  It  should,  how- 
ever, be  borne  in  mind,  that  there  is  no  evidence  whatever, 
that  Timothy  ever  exerted  the  least  authority  in  any  other 
place  than  Ephesus,  nor  any  evidence,  that  he  ever  resided 
anywhere  else  after  he  was  entrusted  with  authority  there. 
If,  then,  it  could  be  shown,  that  he  was  often  away  from  that 
city,  it  would  not  affect  the  question  in  the  least. 

From  these  considerations  it  appears,  that  Timothy  and 
Titus  were  officers  and  ministers  in  the  Churches  at  Ephesus 
and  Crete,  with  official  jurisdiction  over  those  places  ;  and 
that  by  their  offices  they  were  entitled  to  the  sole  power  of 
ordaining,  supervising,  and  ruling  Presbyters  and  Deacons. 
They  had  also  various  other  rights,  and  performed  many  other 
duties  ;  but  as  we  have  shown  that  they  are  all  incident  to  the 
Apostolic  office,  it  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  examine  them 
further  at  this  time. 

(4.)  Epaphroditus  was  the  Apostle  of  the  Church  at  Phil- 
ippi,  having  under  him  Presbyter-bishops  and  Deacons.  The 
Epistle  to  the  Philippians  is  directed  to  the  "  Bishops,  Dea- 
cons, and  Saints  at  Philippi,"  and  seems  to  have  been  sent  to 
them  by  Epaphroditus,  whom  Paul  calls  "  their  Apostle." 
(Phil.  ii.  25.)  We  have  already  alluded  to  the  Apostleship  of 
Epaphroditus,  and  have  enumerated  some  of  the  circumstances 
which  lead  us  to  infer  that  he  was  the  Apostle  of  that  Cliurch.f 

(5.)  The  case  of  the  seven  Churches  of  Asia,  also  tends 

*  See  Ante.  pp.  175,  6.         f  Ante.  pp.  177—182 


220  ONE  APOSTOLIC  BISHOP, 

to  prove  the  existence  of  an  office  higher  than  that  of  Presby- 
ter-bishop, in  the  Apostolic  Church.  From  the  three  firs^ 
chapters  of  the  Revelation  of  St.  John,  we  learn,  that  in  each 
of  the  seven  Churches,  there  was  an  Angel,  who  is  addressed 
as  if  responsible  for  the  conduct  and  character  of  the  Churches 
in  which  he  was  placed.  The  word  Angel,  like  that  of 
Apostle,  signifies  literally,  one  sent,  that  is,  a  messenger,  and 
hence  we  might  infer  the  identity  of  their  office.  But  as  a 
name  of  itself  determines  nothing,  we  must  look  to  acts.  We 
read,  then,  that  one  of  the  complaints  against  the  Angel  of 
the  Church  of  Pergamos  was,  that  he  suffered  the  Nicolaitans 
and  those  that  taught  the  doctrine  of  Baalam,  to  remain  in  the 
Church.  (Rev.  ii.  14,  15.)  So  against  the  Angel  of  the  Church 
in  Thyatira,  it  is  said  that  he  suffiired  the  false  prophetess 
Jezebel,  to  continue  in  the  Church.  (Rev.  ii.  20.)*  If  then  it 
was  wrong  for  the  Angel  to  permit  these  things,  it  follows  from 
the  very  nature  of  the  case,  that  he  had  power  to  prevent  them, 
and  consequently,  that  he  exercised  some  power  and  authority 
in  the  Church,  and,  therefore,  must  have  been  an  officer  in  the 
same.  Now  we  have  shown,  that  in  the  Church  of  Ephesus, 
one  of  the  seven  Churches,  there  was  an  Apostle,  possessing 
authority  to  rule  and  govern  the  Church,  and,  therefore,  should 
very  properly  be  held  in  some  degree  answerable  for  the 
character  of  the  Church  over  which  he  presided.  Indeed, 
the  language  in  this  very  place  supposes  such  authority. 
The  "  seven  stars,"  which  were  "  the  Angels  of  the  seven 
Churches,"  (Rev.  i.  16,  20,)  were   in   the  hand,   and  conse- 

*  Instead  of  "  that  woman  Jezebel,"  as  our  English  Bible  reads,  most  of 
the  ancient  versions,  and  many  excellent  manuscripts  have,  "  thy  xvife 
Jezebel,"  and  this  reading  has  been  adopted  by  Griesbach.  Tertullian, 
however,  in  the  second  century,  read  as  the  present  English.  (De  Pudicit. 
c.  19.)  And  so  does  the  Vulgate,  which  dates  from  about  the  same  period. 
This  alteration,  however,  proves  two  things;  (1,)  that  the  Angels  of  the 
Churches  were  then  regarded  as  individual  persons,  and  (2)  that  at  that 
period  the  Bishops  were  permitted  to  marry. 


IN  EVERY  APOSTOLIC  CHURCH.  221 

quently  the  executioners  of  the  will  of  the  Son  of  Man.  We 
are,  therefore,  obliged  to  conclude,  that  there  was  in  the 
Church  at  Ephesus,  and  hence  in  all  others,  an  Apostle  and  an 
Angel,  or  else  that  both  of  these  words  denote  the  same  officer, 
as  their  primary  signification  would  lead  us  to  conclude.  The 
last  of  these  conclusions  seems  altogether  the  most  reasona- 
ble, and  it  is  much  strengthened  by  the  fact,  that  the  capacity 
in  which  both  appear  to  have  acted  was  the  same,  while  there 
is  no  intimation  in  Scripture  that  two  offices  of  that  kind  ex- 
isted in  any  one  Church.  In  addition  to  this,  it  should  be 
borne  in  mind,  that  in  the  Church  at  Ephesus,  we  know  there 
was  di. plurality  of  Presbyter-bishops,  (Acts  xx.  17,  28,)  and 
if  the  Angel  was  an  officer  answerable  for  the  conduct  of  the 
whole  Church,  these  were  included,  and  hence  he  must  have 
been  superior  to  them.  We  are  led  to  conclude  then,  that  the 
Apostles  and  Angels  of  the  Churches  were  the  same,  and  we 
have,  therefore,  proved  the  existence  of  Apostles  in  Jeru- 
salem, Ephesus,  Crete,  Philippi,  Smyrna,  Pergamos,  Thya- 
tira,  Sardis,  Philadelphia,  and  Laodicea,  and  consequently,  in 
all  the  Apostolic  Churches,  having  under  them  a  plurality  of 
Presbyter-bishops  and  Deacons. 

(6.)  To  the  foregoing,  we  must  add  the  Church  at  Colosse,  in 
which  Epaphras  appears  to  have  been  the  Apostolic  Bishop. 
The  epistle  is  addressed  to  "  the  saints  and  faithful  brethren 
at  Colosse,"  (i.  2,)  and  in  it  Epaphras  is  described  by  the 
Apostle  as  "  our  dear  fellow-servant,  who  is  for  you  a  faith- 
ful minister  of  Christ ;  who  also  declared  unto  us  your  love," 
(i.  7,  8,)  and  though  in  bonds,  (Philemon  23,)  is  spoken  of  as 
"  always  laboring  fervently  for  you  in  prayers,  that  ye  may 
stand  perfect  and  complete  in  all  the  will  of  God."     (iv.  12.) 

(7.)  So  also,  Archippus  appears  to  have  been  the  Apostolic 
Bishop,  probably  in  the   Church  of  Laodicea.*     To  the  Co- 

*  The  Apostolical  Constitutions  say,  "  of  Laodicea,  in  Phrygia."  (B.  vii. 
c.  46.) 


222  ONE  APOSTOLIC  BISHOP, 

lossians,  the  Apostle  says :  "  And  when  this  epistle  is  read 
among  you,  cause  that  it  be  read  also  in  the  Church  of  the 
Laodiceans  ;  and  that  ye  likewise  read  that  from  Laodicea. 
And  say  to  Archippus,take  heed  to  the  ministry  which  thou  hast 
received  in  the  Lord,  that  thou  fulfill  it."  (iv.  16.)  From  this, 
it  seems  evident,  that  Archippus  did  not  belong  to  the  number  of 
brethren  at  Colosse,  as  in  that  case  St.  Paul  would  have  ad- 
dressed him,  and  not  directed  others  to  do  it.  That  he  was 
the  head  of  a  Church,  is  clear  from  what  is  said  in  the  epis- 
tle to  Philemon  :  "  To  Archippus,  our  fellow-soldier,  and  to 
the  Church  in  thy  house."  (ver.  2.)  This  evidently  implies  that 
Archippus  was  over  this  Church,  wherever  it  might  have  been. 
What  is  the  true  meaning  of  the  phrase,  "  in  thy  house,"  will 
be  considered  under  the  next  head. 

(8.)  We  have  just  spoken  of  "  Archippus,  and  the  Church 
in  his  house."  To  this  we  must  add,  that  we  find  the  Apos- 
tle making  mention  of  "  Nymphas,  and  the  Church  in  his 
house,"  (Col.  iv.  15,)  and  of  "  Aquilla  and  Priscilla,  and  the 
Church  in  their  house."  (Rom.  xvi.  5  ;  1  Cor.  xvi.  19.)  By 
the  phrase,  "  the  Church  in  their  house,"  is  frequently,  if  not 
generally  understood,  "  a  body  of  Christians  accustomed  to 
meet  in  the  private  houses  of  these  particular  individuals." 
That  the  language  may  mean  this,  is  allowed ;  that  it  does 
mean  this,  is  by  no  means  certain. 

First,  it  appears  to  us  an  unnecessary,  if  not  an  unwar- 
ranted limitation  of  the  Scriptural  use  of  the  word  Church. 
This  word  is  used,  (1,)  to  denote  the  Church  Universal; 
(2,)  the  Church  on  earth,  indefinitely ;  and  (3)  the  Church 
within  a  particular  territory.  The  only  places  where  it  is 
supposed  to  be  limited,  are  the  ones  above  quoted.  The  rea- 
son of  this  limitation  is,  however,  alledged  to  be  the  meaning 
of  the  word  oikos,  rendered  house. 

But,  second,  this  does  not  seem  to  require  such  a  limitation. 
The  verb  oikeo,  signifies  to  inhabit,  to  dwell,  to  direct,  to  gov- 


IN  EVERY  APOSTOLIC   CHURCH.  223 

erw,  to  keep  house,  to  manage.  Hence,  we  should  expect  to 
find  the  noun  oikos,  signifying  a  dwelling  place,  whether  coun- 
try, city,  or  house*  And  so  we  find  it.  The  most  common, 
meaning  is  that  of  a  house,  as  "  a  dwelling  place."  But  it  is 
sometimes  used  in  a  wider  sense  ;  as,  "  0  Jerusalem,  .... 
your  house  [oikos,  i.  e.  city  or  country)  is  left  unto  you  deso- 
late." (Matt,  xxiii.  38.)  And  "Behold  your  house,  [oikos, 
i.  e.  city  or  country)  is  left  desolate."  (Luke  xiii.  35.)  If 
we  give  to  oikos,  in  the  passages  under  consideration,  the 
meaning  which  it  must  have  in  these  places,  it  will  sig- 
nify "  the  Church  throughout,  or  within  his  dwelling  place  ;" 
that  is,  throughout  his  city ;  or,  as  we  should  say  in  modern 
times,  "throughout  his  Diocese." 

Or  if  the  signification  must  be  limited,  then  we  must  render 
these  phrases,  not  as  signifying  those  Christians  which  assem- 
bled in  his  house,  but  those  which  dwelt  in  his  house  ;  the 
words  "  that  is,"  in  Romans  xvi.  5,  and  1  Corinthians  xvi.  19, 
not  being  in  the  original.  Hence  it  must  be  translated,  "  the 
Church  within  thy  house  ;"  that  is,  those  belonging  to  it ;  and 
consequently,  of  his  household;  in  which  case,  the  word 
Church  is  used  figuratively,  to  denote  the  Christians  of  his 
household. 

The  existence  of  Apostles  or  Angels  in  these  and  other 
Churches,  is  also  attested  by  early  history,  and  we  know  the 
names  of  many  of  them.  Among  those  in  the  first  century, 
we  may  enumerate  the  following,  who  occupied  the  seat  of  the 
Apostles,  or  who  succeeded  to  the  Apostles  in  the  govern- 

*  This  root  is  the  same  as  the  Saxon  wic,  m  such  words  as  haili-wic,  a 
Sheriff's  sphere  of  duty ;  Nor-wich,  the  North  town,  or  village.  When 
applied  to  religious  persons,  it  denoted  the  place  or  country  belonging  to 
them,  as  a  monastery,  or  the  like.  (Elfric's  Ep.  i.  31.  Smith's  Bede, 
606,  9.  Bos.  Ang.  Sax.  Die.  455.  90w.)  Kindred  with  this,  is  the  Latin 
vicus,  a  village,  hamlet ;  Dutch,  wyk  ;  Old  German,  wik,  weik,  a  dwelling- 
place,  habitation,  village. 


224  ONE  BISHOP  IN  A  CHURCH. 

meiit  of  the  Churches.  Timothy  was  the  first  Bishop  of 
Ephesus  ;*  Titus  was  the  first  Bishop  of  Crete  ;t  Polycarp, 
ordained  by  St.  John,  the  first  Bishop  of  Smyrna  ;\  Linus, 
ordained  by  St.  Paul,  the  first  Bishop  of  Rome  ;§  Dionysius, 
ordained  by  St.  Paul,  the  first  Bishop  of  Athens  ;\  James,  the 
first  Bishop  of  Jerusalem  ;1I  Anianus,  ordained  by  St.  Mark, 
the  first  Bishop  of  Alexandria;**  Philip,  one  of  the  twelve. 
Bishop  of  Hierapolis  ;tt  Thomas,  one  of  the  twelve,  Bishop 
of  Parthia  ;\X  Andrew,  one  of  the  twelve.  Bishop  of  Scy^ 
thia  ;§§  and  Evodius,  ordained  by  St.  Peter,  the  first  Bishop 
of  Antioch.^^  Inasmuch,  then,  as  all  the  Churches  of  which 
we  possess  any  account,  did,  in  the  first  century,  have  a 
Bishop,  and  only  one  Bishop,  and  as  all  had  under  them  a 
plurality  of  Presbyters,  or,  as  we  have  called  them,  Presbyter- 
bishops  and  Deacons,  the  inference  is  irresistible,  that  these 
officers  existed  in  all  the  other  Churches  ;  for  if  they  did  not 
exist  in  all  the  Churches,  the  organization  was  not  uniform, 
and  our  inquiries  are  fruitless.  And  if  they  did  exist,  then 
the  Angels  of  the  Churches  in  Asia  Minor  must  have  be- 
longed to  the  first  class  or  order  of  ministers  ;  that  is,  must 
have  been  Bishops  who  succeeded  to  the  Apostles,  in  their 
places  as  governors  of  the  Churches. 

That  there  could  be  only  one  Bishop  in  a  city,  is  evident 
from  what  Ignatius  says  in  his  Epistles.  But  there  is  still 
stronger  evidence  of  this  fact,  in  St.  Cyprian's  Treatise  on  the 
Unity  of  the  Church;^^  where  he  expressly  declares,  that  "the 
Episcopate  is  one   and  indivisible."     And  Cornelius,  Bishop 

♦Ante  p.  175.  fAnlep.  175.  4:Euseb.  Ign.  and  Iren. 

§  Iren.  Adv.  Haer.  iii.  3.     Apos.  Cons.  vii.  46. 

11  Eijseb.  iii.  4  ;  iv.  23.     Apos.  Cons.  vii.  46. 

IF  Euscb.  Ecc.  Hist.  iii.  5. 

**  Euseb.  ii.  1,  23  ;  iii.  5.     Clem.  Inst.  6. 

tt  Ep.  Polycr.  Euseb.  v.  24.        ^  Euseb.  iii.  1.         §§  Euseb.  iii.  1. 

nil  Euseb.  iii.  22.     Apos.  Cons.  vii.  46.  ITIT  C.  4. 


AN  APOSTOLIC  BISHOP  AT  EPHESUS.  •  225 

of  Rome,  in  an  epistle  to  Fabius,  Bishop  of  Antioch,  A.  D. 
252,  speaks  of  the  rule  of  "  the  Catholic  (orthodox)  Church," 
that  there  should  be  "  but  one  Bishop  in  a  Church."* 

It  has  been  objected  to  the  position  here  established,  by 
those  who  deny  the  original  superiority  of  Bishops,  that  inas- 
much as  there  is  no  mention  made  of  Timothy,  nor  of  any 
other  Apostolic  Bishop  at  Ephesus,  in  the  epistle  to  that 
Church,  that  there  could  have  been  no  such  officer  there  at 
that  time.  But  it  will  be  seen  upon  a  moment's  considera- 
tion, that  this  inference  by  no  means  follows.  The  admitted 
uniformity  of  the  Apostolic  Churches,  enables  us  to  infer  the 
existence  of  a  particular  office  in  one  Church,  from  its  known 
existence  in  another  Church.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
omission  to  mention  a  particular  office,  in  a  general  epistle, 
on  another  subject,  does  not  even  raise  a  presumption  against 
its  existence.  Now  it  was  evidently  no  part  of  St.  Paul's 
design  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  to  say  any  thing  of  the 
ministry  of  the  Church,  except  in  so  far  as  it  tended  immedi- 
ately to  spiritual  edification.  Consequently,  he  has  scarcely 
any  thing  on  the  subject  in  this  epistle.  Now  if  the  omission 
to  mention  Timothy's  residence  there,  and  authority  in  that 
Church,  proves  that  he  was  not  an  officer  in  that  Church  ;  the  , 
omission  to  mention  either  Bishops  or  Deacons  would  also 
prove  that  none  of  these  existed  there,  and  that  there  were  no 
officers  at  all  in  that  Church. 

But  further,  the  assumption  that  there  is  no  mention  of  any 
Apostle  as  existing  in  the  Church  at  Ephesus,  is  opposed  to 
the  fact.  In  chapter  second,  St.  Paul  assures  the  Ephesians 
that  Christ  had  broken  down  the  wall  of  partition  which  had 
before  his  death  separated  the  Gentile's  from  the  Church  pf 
God,  and  that  then  the  Gentiles  also  were  fellow-citizens 
with  the  children  of  Israel,  in  the    Christian  Church,  which 

*  Euseb.  iii.  43. 

20 


226        APOSTLES  AND  PROPHETS  RECOGNIZED 

he  assures  them  is  "  built  upon  the  Apostles  and  Prophets, 
Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief  corner  stone."  (Eph.  ii. 
20.)  Here,  then,  is  an  express  recognition  of  the  two  superior 
orders  mentioned  in  1  Corinthians,  (xii.  28,)  accompanied  by  an 
unequivocal  declaration,  that  these  are  the  frame-work  of  that 
Church,  which,  resting  upon  the  divine  authority  of  Christ 
himself,  for  its  sure  foundation  stone,  contains  and  supports 
"  the  Church  of  the  living  God."  Now  it  would  be  marve- 
lous indeed,  if  St.  Paul  should  thus  publicly  and  solemnly  as- 
sure the  Ephesian  Christians,  that  "  the  Apostles  and  Proph- 
ets" were  the  very  frame-work  of  the  Church,  when  at  the 
same  time  there  was  no  such  thing  as  an  Apostle  in  the  Church 
he  was  addressing.  Such  a  conclusion  can  not  be  admitted 
without  strong  proof. 

It  may,  however,  be  said,  as  it  has  been  before,  that  by 
"  Prophets"  in  this  place,  the  Apostle  meant  the  Prophets  of 
the  Old  Testament.  This  position  can  not  be  allowed,  since 
it  would  overturn  the  whole  of  the  Apostle's  argument  con- 
cerning the  Christian  faith.  For,  (1,)  the  Prophets  are  placed 
posterior  and  inferior  to  Apostles,  which  would  not  have  been 
done,  had  men  of  previous  times  been  referred  to.  (2.)  Be- 
cause in  no  sense  can  it  be  said  that  the  Prophets  of  the  Old 
Testament  are  the  frame-work,  or  foundation  of  the  Christian 
Church,  unless  we  suppose  that,  by  a  figure  of  speech  the 
Apostle  put  the  men,  for  the  doctrine.  But  if  we  assume  that 
by  Prophets,  is  meant  the  doctrine  of  the  Prophets,  consis- 
tency requires  us  to  construe  the  Apostles,  to  signify  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Apostles  ;  and  Jesus  Christ,  to  signify  the  doc- 
trine of  Jesus  Christ  ;  making,  therefore,  as  the  Socinians 
do,  the  Church  to  rest  for  its  foundation,  not  on  the  atonement 
and  mediatorial  sacrifice  o/ Christ,  but  merely  on  the  doctrine 
he  preached.  And  (3)  it  is  clear,  that  liy  Prophets  St.  Paul 
did  not  mean  the  Prophets  of  the  Old  Testament,  from  what 
he  has  said  in  the  same  epistle.     Thus  he  tells  us,  (Eph.  iii. 


IN  THE  EPISTLE   TO  THE  EPHESIANS.  227 

5,)  that  "  the  mystery  of  the  Christian  dispensation,  .... 
was  NOT,  in  other  ages,  made  known  to  the  sons  of  men,  as  it 
is  NOW  revealed  unto  his  holy  Apostles  and  Prophets  by  the 
Spirit."  The  Prophets  here  spoken  of,  must  be  considered 
as  the  same  mentioned  only  seven  verses  before,  and  which 
with  the  Apostles  compose  the  frame-work  of  the  Church; 
and  these  Prophets  were  living  when  St,  Paul  was  writing. 
If  there  could  be,  after  this,  any  doubt  concerning  the  persons 
designated  by  "  Prophets,"  they  would  be  entirely  removed 
by  what  is  said  in  chapter  iv.  11,  12,  where  it  is  said  that 
these  very  "  Apostles  and  Prophets"  were  created  "  for  the  per- 
fecting of  the  Saints,yor  the  work  of  the  ministry,  for  the  edify- 
ing of  the  body  of  Christ — the  Church."  So  far,  therefore, 
from  there  being  any  thing  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  op- 
posed to  the  idea  that  Timothy  was  the  Apostle  of  that  Church, 
we  are  obliged  to  infer,  that  if  he  was  not,  somebody  else  was. 

But  there  is  yet  another  consideration  connected  with  this 
epistle,  which  deserves  to  be  noticed  in  this  place.  It  is  al- 
lowed by  all,  that  the  superintendence  of  the  inspiring  Spirit 
over  the  Apostles,  is  a  perfect  safeguard  against  their  commit- 
ting any  error  relative  to  the  gospel  or  the  Church,  and  that 
whatever  was  necessary  to  be  done,  that  they  did,  and  what 
they  did.  that  was  their  duty  to  do.  Hence,  we  are  not  al- 
lowed to  suppose,  that  any  thing  was  omitted  by  the  Apostles 
in  any  Church,  which  was  necessary  to  the  existence  or  well- 
being  of  the  Church.  Consequently,  when  we  find  the  Apos- 
tle assuring  a  Church  in  any  place,  that  the  Church  is  "  built 
on  the  Apostles  and  Prophets,"  we  are  compelled  to  conclude, 
that  both  Apostles  and  Prophets  must  have  existed  in  all  those 
Churches  to  which  such  an  epistle  was  sent. 

Now  it  will  be  no  news  to  many  of  our  readers,  that  the 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  is  believed  by  many  learned  men,  to 
have  been  an  Encyclical  or  Circular  Epistle  to  the  Churches 
of  Asia  Minor,  and  was  entitled,  "  to  the  Ephesians,"  on  ac- 


228  APOSTLE  OF  EPHESUS. 

count  of  the  priority  or  pre-eminence  of  that  city.  The  rea- 
sons for  this  opinion  are,  briefly:  (1,)  the  words  "  at  Ephesus" 
(c.  i.  ver.  1)  are  wanting  in  some  of  the  best  manuscripts  ;  (2,) 
the  same  w'ords  appear  to  have  been  wanting  in  the  manu- 
script copies  of  this  epistle,  used  by  the  commentators  of  the 
primitive  Church ;  (3,)  some  of  the  persons  to  whom  this 
epistle  was  addressed,  had  never  seen  Paul,  as  is  evident  from 
what  he  says,  (c.  iii.  1,2,  3,)  ahhough  he  had  resided  at  Eph- 
esus two  years  before  he  wrote  this  epistle.  (Acts  xix.  10.) 
(4.)  Paul  wrote  an  epistle,  which  was  sent  to  the  Church  at 
Laodicea,  and  from  thence  to  the  Church  at  Colosse,  (Col.  iv. 
16,)  which  is  lost,  if  this  be  not  the  very  same,  as  many 
learned  men  have  supposed.*  (5.)  This  is  rendered  proba- 
ble, also,  by  the  fact,  that  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians  seems 
to  have  been  written  at  the  same  time,  and  we  know  it  was 
sent  by  the  same  person,  as  that  to  the  Colossians.  (Eph.  vi. 
21  ;  Col.  iv.  7.)  And  (6)  this  is  still  further  evident,  from  the 
identity  of  thought  and  expression,  occurring  in  both  ;  espe- 
cially in  Ephesians  v.  19 — vi.  9,  compared  with  Colossians 
iii.  16 — 24.  The  most  reasonable  conclusion,  therefore,  is, 
that  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  was  originally  an  Encyclical 
Letter,  addressed  to  all  the  Churches  of  Asia  Minor,  and  if 
so,  it  proves  the  existence  of  Apostles  and  Prophets  in  all  the 
Churches  within  that  territory.! 

It  has  been  asked,  in  answer  to  this  conclusion,  "  who  w^as 
Bishop  of  Philippi,  when  Polycarp  wrote  his  epistle  to  that 
Church  ?"  And  because  it  does  not  clearly  appear  from  the 
epistle  itself,  that  there  was  a  Bishop  at  Philippi  at  that  very 
time,  it  has  been  inferred,  that  there  were  no  Bishops  in  the 

♦  Hug.  Intr.  N.  T.,  Par.  ii.  §  121— 12G. 

t  Another  view  is,  that  Timothy  was  not  simply  Bis^hop  of  Ephesus,  but 
MetropoUtnn  Bishop  of  Asia  Minor,  and  hence  the  reason  why  he  is  not 
mentioned  in  the  epistle.  (Ussher  Codex.  Can.  c.  v.  Bev.  Cod.  Can.  L. 
c.  5.     Ham.  Praef.  Com.  Ep.  Titus.) 


BISHOP  OF  PHILIPPE.  229 

primitive  Church.  Now  if  we  were  to  admit  that  the  fact 
was  as  they  alledge,  in  regard  to  Philippi,  the  inference  would 
by  no  means  follow,  as  it  might  have  been  without  a  Bishop 
at  that  juncture,  and  yet  be  subject  to  the  provisional  super- 
vision of  some  other  Bishop.  Who  does  not  know,  that  Con- 
necticut was  some  years  without  a  Bishop,  and  that  during 
this  time  Bishop  Hobart,  of  New  York,  exercised  Episcopal 
jurisdiction  over  that  Diocese,  hy  request  of  the  Convention  ? 
And  who  does  not  know,  that  the  whole  Episcopal  Church  in 
this  country  was  without  a  Bishop,  from  its  first  planting  here, 
for  more  than  a  century  and  a  half?  But  did  our  Church, 
therefore,  cease  to  be  Episcopal,  because  she  was,  for  a  time, 
without  a  Bishop  resident  among  us?  And  again,  was  the 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  Diocese  of  Alabama  or  Louisiana, 
not  Episcopal,  when  it  was  under  the  Episcopal  supervision 
of  Bishop  Brownell,  of  Connecticut?  It  does  not,  there- 
fore, follow,  that  because  a  Church  is  without  a  Bishop  at  a 
particular  time,  that  it  is  not  Episcopal.  In  regard  to  the 
Church  at  Philippi,  when  Polycarp  wrote  his  Epistle,  the  fact 
seems  to  have  been,  that  it  had  no  Bishop  at  that  time,  and 
that  they  were  subject  to  the  temporary  supervision  of  Poly- 
carp, until  they  had  elected  a  Bishop. 

This  opinion  is  fairly  inferred  from  the  language  of  Poly- 
carp himself.  His  epistle  is  addressed,  "  Polycarp,  an^i  ^Ae 
Presbyters  who  are  with  him,  to  the  Church  of  God  at  Phil- 
ippi," &c.  In  this  address  two  things  are  to  be  noted:  (1,) 
the  language  is  such  that  Polycarp  could  not  have  been  one 
of  the  Presbyters  ;  (2,)  the  Epistle  was  to  the  Church  of 
Philippi,  but  not  from  the  Church  of  Smyrna,  over  which 
Polycarp  was  Bishop,  hut  from  Polycarp  himself.  Indeed,  it 
does  not  appear  from  the  Epistle,  that  the  Church  of  Smyrna 
had  any  knowledge  of  its  existence,  as  they  are  not,  as  was 
then  usual,  even  joined  in  the  closing  salutation.  The  act 
was,  therefore,  the  personal  act  of  Polycarp,  done  with  the 
20* 


230  POLYCARP,  PROVISIONAL  BISHOP 

consent  "  of  the  Presbyters  who  were  with  him,"  but  in  which 
the  Church  in  Smyrna  took  no  part.  That  Poly  carp  had  such 
a  supervision,  seems  to  be  expressly  asserted  in  the  beginning 
of  chapter  third.  "  These  things,  brethren,  I  write  to  you 
concerning  justice,  not  because  I  would  arrogate  [epitrepsas) 
to  myself  power,  but  because  ye  yourselves  have  before 
called  upon  me  for  aid,  {proepekalesathe") 

There  will  be  no  doubt  on  the  part  of  any  one  concerning 
the  correctness  of  this  translation,  unless  it  be  in  regard  to 
proepekalesathe,  which  we  translate,  to  call  upon  for  aid. 
But  that  this  is  the  proper  meaning  of  the  word,  is  evident, 
both  from  its  popular  use  among  the  Greeks,*  and  from  the 
connection  in  which  it  stands.  The  Philippians  had  called 
upon  Polycarp  for  something  ;  but  clearly  not  to  write  to  them 
on  these  subjects,  for  in  that  case  he  would  not  have  dis- 
claimed all  "  arrogance,"  but  rather  have  said,  "  in  compliance 
with  your  request  I  write,"  &c.  In  fact,  he  uses  such  lan- 
guage as  this  in  reference  to  another  subject,  about  which  they 
had  written  to  him.l  Now  as  the  fact  is  universally  admitted, 
that  in  the  primitive  Church,  the  Bishops  of  one  Church  were 
not  allowed  to  exercise  any  of  the  functions  of  their  ministry 
within  the  limits  of  another  Bishop,  without  his  permission,  or, 
in  case  of  his  death,  without  the  consent  of  those  who  had 
the  oversight  of  the  Church,;}:  any  exercise  of  Episcopal 
functions  within  the  limits  of  the  Church  in  Philippi,  by 
Polycarp,  must  have  been  performed  at  the  request  of  the 
Church,  or  its  Bishop.  The  most  obvious  inference,  there- 
fore, is,  that  Polycarp  had  been  requested  by  the  Church  in 
Philippi  to  exercise  Episcopal  jurisdiction  over  that  Church, 
and  that  he  was  then  standing  in  the  same  relation  to  them  as 


•  Rob.  Gr.  Lex.  N.  T.  f  C.  13. 

:j:  Apos.  Can.  28.     Nice,  Can.  15.     Antioch,  Can.  13.     3  Constantinople, 
Can.  1.     1  Carthage,  Can.  5,  10.     3  Carthage,  Can.  20. 


OF  THE  CHURCH  IN  EPHESUS.  231 

Bishop  Hobart  did  to  the  Church  in  Connecticut,  while  that 
Diocese  was  without  a  Bishop.  Upon  this  supposition  a  good 
and  sufficient  reason  is  afforded,  why  Polycarp  should  write  to 
the  Church  at  Philippi,  and  to  that  Church  alone  ;  and  hence, 
also,  the  reason  of  his  peculiar  phraseology,  which  is  to  the 
following  effect :  "  I  write  these  things,  brethren,  not  because 
I  would  arrogate  power  to  myself,  but  because  ye  have  de- 
sired me  to  exercise  a  provisional  supervision  over  you." 
Nothing  can  be  plainer,  nothing  more  probable,  nothing  more 
consistent.  And  having  thus  prepared  the  way,  he  proceeds 
to  exhort  and  admonish  "  every  class  of  persons  among  them  ; 
Presbyters  and  Deacons,  young  men  and  maidens,  old  men 
and  widows,  husbands  and  their  wives  ;"  directing  them  in 
what  manner  they  ought  to  behave  themselves,  and  that  too,  in 
a  tone  of  authority  which  even  the  much  abused  Ignatius  did 
not  assume.*  This  conclusion  is  also  supported  by  what  is 
said  in  chapter  thirteen.  "  Both  ye  and  Ignatius  wrote  to  me, 
that  if  any  one  went  hence  into  Syria,  he  should  also  bring 
back  your  letters  with  him  ;  which  also  I  will  do,  if  I  have  a 
convenient  opportunity,  either  by  myself,  or  by  the  legate! 
/  shall  send  on  your  account^ 

From  this  it  is  evident,  that  Polycarp  must  either  soon  visit 
Philippi  in  person,  or  "  send  a  legate  on  their  account,"  and 
that  this  "  legate"  was  not  to  be  a  mere  Presbyter,  or  inferior 
member  of  the  Church,  appears  from  the  next  chapter,  where 
it  is  said  that  this  same  epistle  was  sent  to  Philippi  by  Cres- 
cens,  who  seems  to  have  been  a  Presbyter,  originally  at 
Smyrna,  and  afterwards  at  Philippi,  and  whom  (if  a  conjec- 
ture might  be  allowed)  Polycarp  thought  worthy  of  being 
elected  Bishop  of  that  Church.  "  These  things  I  have  written 
unto  you  by  Crescens,  whom  by  this  present  epistle  I  have 

*Comp.  cc.  3—11. 

t  Ancient.  Ver.  legatus,  Greek  of  Nicephorus,  presbousonta. 


232  SOME  LANGUAGE  OF  CLEMENT, 

recommended  to  you,  and  do  now  again  commend.  For  he 
hath  had  his  conversation  without  blame  among  us,  and  I  trust 
in  like  manner  also  with  you."* 

One  other  fact  which  goes  to  strengthen  this  conclusion, 
should  also  be  mentioned  in  this  place.  Ignatius,  in  his 
Epistle  to  Polycarp,  requests  him  to  take  the  oversight  of  the 
Church  at  Antioch,  until  all  things  should  be  again  quietly 
settled  there.! 

Upon  a  review  of  all  the  evidence,  there  is  every  presump- 
tion in  favor  of  supposing  that,  at  the  time  Polycarp  wrote  his 
Epistle  to  the  Church  at  Philippi,  that  Church  was  without  a 
Bishop,  and  that  Polycarp  was  exercising  a  temporary  super- 
vision over  it,  at  their  own  request. 

There  are  also  two  passages  quoted  from  the  fathers,  one  from 
Clement  of  Rome,  and  the  other  from  Ireneeus,  which  are 
claimed  to  be  opposed  to  our  conclusions.  Clement  of  Rome, 
according  to  the  common  translation,  says  :|  "The  Apostles 
thus  preaching  through  countries  and  cities,  they  appointed  the 
first  fruits  of  their  conversions  to  be  Episcopous  and  Diaco- 
nous,  over  such  as  should  afterwards  believe,  having  first 
proved  them  by  the  Spirit.  Nor  was  this  any  new  thing ; 
seeing  that  long  before  it  was  written  concerning  Episcopon 
and  Diaconon,  as  saith  the  Scripture  in  a  certain  place,  '  I 
will  appoint  their  Episcopous  in  righteousness,  and  their  Dia- 
conous  in  faith.'  " 

The  argument  of  the  objector  is  based  upon  the  assump- 
tion, that  Episcopous  and  Diaconous  are  to  be  interpreted  in 
an  ofiicial,  and  not  in  a  general  sense.  But  to  this  we  object, 
(1,)  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  Clement  ever  uses  these 
words  in  an  official  sense  ;  (2,)  that  in  another  place, §  he  de- 
scribes the  three  orders  by  other   names,    as   we  shall  show 

*  C.  14.  t  Ep.  Pol.  cc.  7,  8.     Euseb.  iii.  3G. 

X  Ep.  Cor.  c.  42.  §  C  40. 


OF  ROME,  AND  IRENvEUS,  CONSIDERED.  233 

hereafter ;  (3,)  that  to  sustain  the  interpretation  given  to 
this  text,  we  are  obliged  to  suppose  that  Clement  understood 
the  text  quoted  from  Isaiah,  (Ix.  17,)  as  describing  the  names 
of  the  offices  of  the  Christian  ministry.  But  this  is  absurd, 
for  in  the  Greek  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  was  his  own  lan- 
guage, the  words  are  rulers  [archontas)  and  overseers,  [Epis- 
copous.)  If  then,  he  quoted  this  passage  for  the  purpose 
alledged  by  the  objector,  he  was  guilty  o(  forging  Scripture 
to  suit  his  purpose,  and  that  too,  when  he  could  have  no  pos- 
sible motive  for  doing  it.  (4.)  And  it  is  evident  from  the 
whole  tenor  of  the  chapter  from  which  this  quotation  is  made, 
as  well  as  from  the  one  following,  that  he  intended  to  apply 
the  language  to  a  single  office.  Hence  the  words  should  be 
rendered  overseers  and  ministers,  throughout  the  passage. 

The  other  passage  is  from  Irenaeus.*  "  Such  Presbyters 
the  Church  nourisheth,  and  of  such  the  Prophet  saith, '  I  will 
give  them  rulers  {archontas)  in  peace,  and  overseers  {Episco- 
pons)  in  justice.' " 

The  objector,  here,  also,  makes  Irenaeus  guilty  of  the  ab- 
surdity of  supposing  that  this  passage  describes  the  name  of 
an  ojffice  in  the  Christian  ministry ;  than  which  nothing  could 
have  been  further  from  his  mind. 

8.  To  each  Apostle,  there  seems  to  have  been  allotted  a 
particular  portion  of  country,  in  which  he  preached  the  gos- 
pel, and  over  which  he  exercised  jurisdiction.  Thus  St.  Peter 
addresses  those  to  whom  he  preached  the  gospel,  "  scattered 
throughout  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  iVsia,  and  Bithynia."t 

*  Adv.  Ilaer.  iv.  44. 

t  It  is  worthy  of  observation,  that  Paul  and  Silas  "  were  forbidden  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  to  preach  the  word  in  Asia,"  where  Peter  was  to  preach  ; 
and  that  when  they  "assayed  to  go  into  Bithynia,  [which  was  in  Peter's 
region,]  the  Spirit  suffered  them  not."  (Acts  xvi.  6,  7.)  And  there  is  no 
intimaiion  that  Peter  and  Paul  ever  proclaimed  the  gospel  in  the  same  por- 
tion of  country,  unless  it  were  in  "  the  regions  of  Galatia." 


234  EACH  APOSTLE   HAD  JURISDICTION 

(1  Pet.  i.  1.)  That  he  had  authority  in  all  those  Churches, 
is  eAddent  from  what  he  says  in  the  same  epistle  :*  "  The  Pres- 
byters which  are  among  you,  I,  who  am  a  co-Presbyter,  {sum- 
presbuteros,)  exhort."  Hence  it  follows,  that  Peter  not  only 
had  general  authority  over  all  these  Churches,  but  also,  that 
he  had  authority  in  e^ch. particular  Church  ;  and,  consequently, 
was  entitled  to  exercise  jurisdiction  over  them.  For  if  he 
had  no  authority  in  particular  Churches,  he  could  not  have 
been  a  co-Presbyter. 

But  this  point  is  more  fully  illustrated  in  the  history  of  St. 
Paul.  To  the  Romans,  he  writes,  (Rom.  xvi.  19,  20,)  "  For 
I  will  not  presume  to  speak  of  those  things  which  Christ 
hath  not  wrought  by  me,  to  make  the  Gentiles  obedient  by 
word  and  deed,  through  mighty  signs  and  wonders,  by  the 
power  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  so  that  from  Jerusalem,  and  round 
about  lllyricum,  I  have  fully  preached  the  gospel  of  Christ. 
Yea,  so  have  I  strived  to  preach  the  gospel,  not  where  Christ 
was  named,  lest  I  should  build  on  another  man's  foundation." 
These  verses,  in  the  language  of  Mr.  Locke's  paraphrase, 
read :  "  For  I  shall  not  venture  to  trouble  you  with  any  thing 
concerning  myself,  but  only  what  Christ  hath  wrought  by 
me,  for  the  bringing  of  the  Gentiles  to  Christianity,  both  by 
profession  and  practice,  through  mighty  signs  and  wonders, 
by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  so  that  from  Jerusalem  and 
the  neighboring  countries,  all  along,  quite  to  lllyricum,  I  have 
effectually  preached  the  gospel  of  Christ;  but  so  as  studi- 
ously to  avoid  the  carrying  of  it  to  those  places  where  it  was 
already  planted,  and  where  the  people  were  already  Christ- 
ians, lest  I  should  build  on  another  man's  foundation."  This 
principle  is  still  more  fully  illustrated  in  his  second  Epistle  to 
the  Corinthians.  As  the  figurative  language  of  the  original, 
the  imagery  of  which  was  borrowed  from  the  technical  lan- 

*  1  Ep.  V.  1.     Kob:  783,  and  Geis,  Ecc.  Hisl.  p.  59. 


OVER  A  PARTICULAR  PORTION  OF   COUNTRY.  235 

giiage  of  the  Grecian  games,*  prevents  the  mere  English 
reader  from  obtaining  the  full  import  of  the  language,  we  shall 
give,  on  the  authority  of  Professor  Robinson,  a  modified  trans- 
lation, to  which  will  be  subjoined  Mr.  Locke's  paraphrase. 
From  these,  we  trust  every  reader  may  obtain  a  very  distinct 
idea  of  the  meaning  of  the  passage.  "  We  will  not  boast  of 
things  without  our  allotment,^  but  according  to  the  limit  of  the 
allotment  which  God  haih  distributed  to  us,  an  allotment  to 
reach  even  unto  you.  But  we  stretch  not  ourselves  beyond 
our  limit,  as  though  we  reached  not  unto  you  ;  for  we  are 
come  as  far  as  to  you  also,  in  the  gospel  of  Christ;  not 
boasting  of  things  heyond  our  limit,  that  is,  of  other  men's  la- 
bors ;  but  having  hope,  when  your  faith  is  increased,  that  we 
shall  be  enlarged  by  you  according  to  our  limit,  abundantly,  to 
preach  the  gospel  in  the  regions  beyond  you,  but  not  to  boast 
of  things  made  ready  to  our  hands,  in  another  man's  limitP\ 
In  the  paraphrase  of  Mr.  Locke,  tlie  same  passage  reads, 
"  But  I,  for  my  part,  will  not  boast  of  myself  in  what  has  not 
been  measured  out,  or  allotted  to  me  ;  i.  e.  I  will  not  go  out 
of  my  own  province  to  seek  matter  of  commendation  ;  but 
proceeding  orderly  in  the  province  which  God  hath  measured 
out  and  allotted  to  me,  I  have  reached  even  unto  you  ;  i.  e.  I 
have  preached  the  gospel  in  every  countrj'-,  as  I  went,  till  I 
came  as  far  as  you.  For  I  do  not  extend  myself  further  than 
I  should,  as  if  I  had  skipped  over  other  countries  in  my  way, 
without  proceeding  gradually  to  you  ;  no,  for  I  have  reached 
even  unto  you,  in  preaching  the  gospel  in  all  countries  as  I 
passed  along ;  not  extending  my  boasting  beyond  my  own 
bounds,  into  provinces  not  allotted  to  me,  nor  vaunting  myself 


*Adam  Clark,  i«  Zoco. 

fRob.  pp.  415,  51-5,  on  metron,  and  kanon,  and  Locke  on  ametra,  and 
note  on  the  passage. 
4:  2  Cor.  X.  13 —16. 


236  APOSTOLIC  JURISDICTION  LIMITED. 

in  any  thing  I  have  done  in  another  man's  labors ;  i.  e.  in  a 
Church  planted  by  another  man's  pains  ;  but  having  hope,  that 
your  faith  increasing,  my  province  will  be  enlarged  by  you 
yet  further ;  so  that  I  may  preach  the  gospel  to  the  yet  un- 
converted countries  beyond  you,  and  not  take  glory  to  myself 
from  another  man's  province,  where  all  things  are  made  ready 
to  my  hand."  In  this  language  of  the  Apostle,  the  principle 
is  most  fully  recognized,  that  to  him  a  particular  portion  of 
country  was  allotted  or  assigned  ;  that  his  labors  were  mainly 
confined  to  this  territory ;  and  if  we  take  the  trouble  to  ex- 
amine the  various  epistles  of  St.  Paul,  we  shall  see  that  all  of 
them  are  directed  to  some  Church  within  this  territory ;  ex- 
cept that  to  the  Hebrews,  which  is  general  in  its  direction. 
This  construction  makes  the  meaning  of  the  Apostle's  lan- 
guage evident ;  while  on  no  other  hypothesis  can  it  be  made 
intelligible.  To  this  we  may  add  the  express  declaration  of 
this  Apostle,  that  upon  him  came  "  the  care  of  all  the 
Churches,"  (2  Cor.  ii.  28  ;)  that  is,  as  the  Corinthians  would 
understand  him,  "  of  all  the  Churches  within  his  limit,'^  and 
to  which  he  had  preached  the  gospel. 

In  accordance  with  this  conclusion,  is  the  testimony  of  the 
primitive  historians,  who  uniformly  assign  the  several  Apos- 
tles to  different  countries.  Thus  Origen  tells  us,  "  That  ac- 
cording to  tradition,  Thomas  received  Parthia,  as  his  allotted 
region  ;  Andrew  received  Scythia ;  John,  Asia."*  Other  his- 
torians inform  us  to  what  places  others  of  the  twelve  were 
sent.  From  these  facts,  and  from  the  admitted  uniformity  of 
the  Apostolic  Churches,  we  are  authorized  to  infer,  that  to 
each  Apostle  a  particular  portion  of  country  was  assigned,  in 
which  he  preached  the  gospel,  and  over  which  he  exercised  juris- 
diction. 

9.  The  country  thus  allotted  to  the  Apostles  was  divided 

♦Expos.  Gen.  L.  III.  in  Euseb.  iii.  1. 


APOSTOLIC  ORGANIZATION  PERMANENT.  237 

into  several  districts,  and  Apostolic  authority  committed  to 
particular  individuals  in  each  of  those  districts.  In  order 
fully  to  appreciate  the  evidence  on  this  point,  it  is  necessary 
to  bear  in  mind,  that  the  Apostles  were  not  permanently  loca- 
ted in  any  particular  place  ;  that  they  went  to  one  place,  gath- 
ered a  Church,  appointed  officers,  and  established  laws  for  its 
government,  and  then  proceeded  to  still  other  places.  Indeed, 
their  character  seems  to  have  been  almost  precisely  like  that 
of  our  present  Missionary  Bishops.  It  is  not  probable,  how- 
ever, that  every  Church  was  completely  organized  at  once. 
Suitable  persons  might  not  have  been  procured,  or  the 
Churches  might  at  first  have  been  so  small  that  no  Bishop  was 
appointed. 

Among  these  smaller  districts,  we  have  already  enumerated 
the  following  places,  where  we  have  proved  the  existence  of 
an  Apostolic  Bishop  :  (1,)  Jerusalem  ;  (2,)  Corinth  ;  (3,)  Eph- 
esus  ;  (4,)  Philippi ;  (5,)  Crete  ;  (6,)  Rome  ;  (7,)  Smyrna ; 
(8,)  Pergamos;  (9,)  Thyatira ;  (10,)Sardis;  (II,)  Philadel- 
phia;  (12,)  Laodicea ;  (13,)  Antioch ;  (14,)  Alexandria; 
(15,)  Magnesia;  (16,)  Trallia ;  (17,)  Colosse  ;  (18,)  Hierap- 
olis  ;  (19,)  Parthia;  (20,)  Scythia,  and  other  places.  It  de- 
volves, therefore,  on  those  who  deny  these  conclusions,  to 
prove,  either  that  we  have  entirely  mistaken  the  nature  of  the 
evidence,  or,  that  the  Churches  in  other  places  were  differ- 
ently organized.  And  if  they  can  not  do  either,  our  conclu- 
sions must  stand. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

THE  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC    CHURCH    DESIGNED  TO 
BE  PERMANENT. 

Having  ascertained  what  the  organization  of  the  Apostolic 
Church  was,  we  are  led  to  inquire,  whether  it  was  designed  to 
21 


238  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC 

he  permanent  or  temporary  ?  In  answer  to  this  inquiry,  we 
observe,  first,  it  is  admitted  by  all,  that  Christianity  was  de- 
signed to  be  permanent,  and  that  its  requirements  are  of  per- 
petual obligation.  The  only  natural  and  obvious  inference, 
therefore,  is,  that  those  institutions  which  were  formed  for 
propagating  and  preserving  it,  should  have  the  same  perpetu- 
ity. Indeed,  in  the  absence  of  all  opposing  evidence,  we  are 
compelled  to  believe,  that  this  inference  is  the  true  one.  This 
follows  from  the  principles  on  which  we  have  shown  all  ar- 
gument in  this  case  proceeds,  and  which,  for  the  purpose  of 
illustration,  we  shall  here  repeat.  Thus,  in  the  case  we  then 
supposed,  the  bare  mention  of  any  custom,  regulation,  or 
practice  of  the  American  army,  in  one  of  the  letters  before 
described,  without  any  intimation  of  its  being  either  unusual 
or  extraordinary,  would  be  conclusive  evidence,  that  it  formed 
a  customary  regulation.  Now  every  customary  regulation  is 
supposed  to  form  a  part  of  the  practice  or  discipline  of  the 
army,  and  hence,  unless  expressly  countermanded,  continues 
while  the  army  exists.  The  same  reasoning,  as  we  have 
seen,  must  apply  to  the  organization  of  the  Apostolic  Church, 
or  else  it  is  fruitless  to  inquire  concerning  that  organization. 
The  fact,  therefore,  that  numerous  things  are  mentioned  in 
the  letters  of  St.  Paul  to  his  friends,  concerning  the  practice 
and  discipline  of  the  Church,  without  any  intimation  of  their 
being  unusual,  extraordinary,  or  temporary,  makes  this  case 
precisely  parallel  to  the  one  supposed,  and  hence,  what  would 
be  conclusive  in  that,  must  be  final  in  this.  Whatsoever 
things,  therefore,  we  find  existing  in  the  Apostolic  Church, 
unaccompanied  by  any  intimation  that  they  were  temporary^ 
we  must  reckon  among  the  customary  regulations  of  that 
Church.  And  these,  of  course,  must  continue  while  the 
Church  continues,  unless  countermanded  by  some  authority 
equal  to  that  by  which  they  were  established.  Upon  every 
principle  of  sound  reasoning,  therefore,  it   is  not  necessary 


CHURCH  DESIGNED  TO  BE  PERMANENT.  239 

that  there  should  be  an  express  command  to  render  the  Apos- 
tolic practice  binding  upon  all  succeeding  generations  ;  on  the 
contrary,  it  is  requisite  that  there  should  be  an  express  permis- 
sion to  authorize  a  deviation  from  it. 

Yet  the  truth  of  this  very  reasonable  inference  is  sometimes 
denied,  and  it  is  claimed,  that  as  the  Apostles  did  not  command 
that  the  Ecclesiastical  organization  which  they  had  adopted 
should  be  continued  in  the  Church,  it  is  not  obligatory  upon 
us,  and  we  are  at  liberty  to  follow  it  or  not,  as  we  choose. 
But  if  we  examine  the  principle  from  which  this  conclusion 
is  drawn,  we  shall  find  it  so  exceeding  broad,  as  to  be  of  dan- 
gerous tendency  ;  for  if  one  man  may  fairly  urge  that  the 
Apostolic  form  of  the  Church  is  not  binding  on  us,  because 
there  is  no  command  requiring  our  obedience  to  it,  another 
may  urge,  upon  the  same  principles,  that  the  doctrines  which 
they  preached  are  not  obligatory  upon  us,  as  there  is  no  com- 
mand requiring  us  to  obey  them.  Some  persons,  however, 
have  obtained  the  belief,  tliat  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel  are 
of  divine  authority,  and  of  perpetual  obligation,  because  de- 
livered under  the  influence  and  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
while  the  form  of  the  Apostolic  Church  they  suppose  not  to 
be  of  divine  authority,  and,  therefore,  not  of  perpetual  obli- 
gation, because,  as  they  imagine,  the  Apostles,  in  establishing 
it,  were  not  guided  by  divine  inspiration,  but  left  to  consult 
their  own  views  of  expediency.  Now,  if  such  persons  would 
endeavor  to  look  up  some  authority  for  this  opinion,  they 
would  find  it  not  only  destitute  of  any  scriptural  foundation, 
but  in  direct  opposition  to  the  whole  tenor  of  it.* 

When  speaking  of  the  orders  of  the  ministry,  St.  Paul  is 
unusually  explicit  as  to  their  divine  original.     In  order,  how- 

*  Unless  they  lake  the  untenable  and  sophistical  ground  of  Dr.  Whately, 
that  the  Apostles  were  supernaturally  withheld  from  recording  these  things, 
in  order  to  allow  us  to  deviate  from  their  forms,  if  we  please.  See  King. 
Christ. 


240  ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  APOSTOLIC 

eA^er,  to  see  the  full  force  of  the  language  where  he  enume- 
rates them,  we  must  bear  in  mind,  that  the  first  Epistle  to  the 
Corinihians  was  written  in  answer  to  one  they  had  previously 
written  to  him.  Thus,  St.  Paul  says  to  them :  "  Now  con- 
cerning the  things  whereof  ye  wrote,''  (vii.  1  ;)  that  is,  having 
finished  that  part  of  his  epistle  which  related  to  things  not 
spoken  of  in  their  letter,  he  recurs  to  it  and  says  :  "  Now  con- 
cerning the  things  whereof  ye  wrote  ;"  continuing  to  reply  to 
their  inquiries  to  the  end  of  the  epistle.  One  of  these  in- 
quiries related  to  "spiritual  gifts,"  (xii.  1,)  and  especially  to 
the  degree  of  precedence,  which  should  be  observed  among 
those  who  were  endowed  with  such  gifts.  It  would  seem, 
also,  from  the  tenor  of  his  argument,  that  they  had  inquired 
"  whether  those  who  wrought  miracles  and  spoke  with 
tongues,  were  not  entitled  to  the  highest  places  or  rank  in  the 
Church,  ranking  above  the  permanent  officers  thereof?"  In 
reply  to  this,  St.  Paul  says,  (xii.  28  :)  "  GOD  hath  set  in  the 
Church,  first,  '  proton,'  that  is,  first  of  all,  or,  hefore  all* 
APOSTLES  ;  secondarily,  PROPHETS  ;  thirdly,  TEACH- 
ERS ;  afterwards,  [epeita,)  miracles,  gifts  of  healing,"  &c. 
Now  epeita,  according  to  Buttman,!  often  expresses  "  censure 
and  reproach,  the  cause  of  the  indignation  or  surprise  being 
first  stated."  This  is  precisely  the  usage  in  this  place  ;  and, 
consequently,  the  Apostle  expresses  his  surprise  that  they 
could  even  have  thought  of  asking  such  a  question ;  and  cen- 
sures them  for  so  far  forgetting  the  order  of  God's  Church  as 
to  ask  it.  The  question  of  the  Corinthians  was  a  plain  one, 
and  the  answer  of  the  Apostle,  strikingly  explicit.  This  an- 
swer asserts,  (1,)  that  the  ministry  is  of  divine  appointment ; 
(2,)  that  it  consists  of  three  orders,  called  Apostles,  Prophets, 
and  Teachers  ;  and  (3)  that  the  power  of  working  miracles, 
and  the  gift  of  tongues,  for  no  necessary  part  of  the  ministe- 

*  Comp.  Malt,  xxiii.  20.     Acts  xiii.  10.     Horn.  i.  S.     1  Cor.  xi.  18. 
tGr.  Gram.  $  119,  p.  429.  Ed.  Andover,  1S33. 


CHURCH   DESIGNED  TO  BE  PERMANENT.  241 

rial  office,  and  is,  in  fact,  to  be  regarded  as  inferior  tp  it.  The 
orders  of  ministers  in  the  Apostolic  Church,  were,  therefore, 
equally  the  suggestions  of  divine  wisdom,  with  the  doctrine 
contained  in  the  gospel,  and  hence,  the  Apostles  had  no  more 
right  to  change  them,  than  they  had  to  vary  the  doctrines  they 
had  received  from  Christ.  And  if  the  inspired  Apostles  did 
not  possess  such  authority,  surely  it  would  seem  that  their 
uninspired  successors  could  not  be  endowed  with  it. 

We  have  proceeded  thus  far,  as  though  the  Scriptures  gave 
no  intimation  concerning  the  perpetuity  of  the  Apostolic 
Church,  and  that,  therefore,  the  whole  was  to  be  made  out  by 
inference  ;  but  we  shall  now  show,  that  this  is  not  the  fact. 
We  have  already  seen,  that  the  Great  Head  of  the  Church, 
in  the  commission  he  granted  to  his  Apostles,  expressly 
promised,  "  to  be  with  them  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world.''''  But  as  this  could  not  be  fulfilled  in  their  own  per- 
sons, it  requires  us  to  suppose  a  perpetual  succession.  It 
would  not  be  enough  to  suppose  perpetuity  without  succes- 
sion, for  in  that  case,  the  language  could  not  apply  to  the 
Apostles.  The  language,  "  I  will  be  with  you  always,  even 
unto  the  end  of  the  world,"  is  equivalent  to  the  phrase,  I  will 
be  with  you  and  your  successors,  to  the  end  of  the  world. 
This  conclusion  is  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  every-day 
practice  of  mankind,  and  is  sanctioned  by  the  plainest  dictates 
of  common  sense.  If  a  body  of  men  were  made  a  perpetual 
corporation,  with  power  to  fill  all  vacancies  which  should  hap- 
pen in  their  numbers,  either  by  death  or  removal,  no  one  would 
hesitate  to  say,  that  a  grant  to  such  corporation  forever,  was 
for  the  benefit  of  the  present  members  and  their  successors, 
though  the  latter  were  not  mentioned.*     So  in  the  case  under 

*  This  is  the  common  law,  (which  is  said  to  be  "  the  perfection  of  com- 
mon sense,")  on   this  subject,  so  that   a  grant  of  lands  to  a  corporation 
aggregate,  passes  a  fee  simple,  without  the  word  successors.     (Coke  on  Lit- 
tleton, L.  ii.  §  133,  fol.  94,  b,  and  Hargrave's  Note,  No.  4.) 
21* 


242  THE  PRIESTHOOD  PERPETUAL. 

consideration,  Christianity  is  made  permanent  and  perpetual, 
and  the  Church  which  was  founded  to  preserve  and  propagate 
it,  must,  therefore,  be  alike  durable  ;  and  as  we  have  shown 
that  the  Apostles  were  officers  in  the  same,  having  authority 
to  add  to  their  numbers,  it  follows  that  a  grant  or  promise  to 
them  forever,  must  inure  to  their  successors,  though  they  are 
not  named. 

The  command  of  Paul  to  Timothy  is  decisive  of  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  office  which  Timothy  held,  which  we  have 
already  shown  was  that  of  an  Apostle.  "  The  things  that 
thou  hast  heard  of  me,  the  same  commit  thou  (i.  e.  give  in 
charge,  or  entrust)*  to  faithful  men,  who  shall  be  able  to 
teach  others  also."  (2  Tim.  ii.  2.)  The  same  inference 
flows  from  the  language  of  Paul  to  the  Ephesians,  where  it  is 
said  the  ministry  which  Christ  established,  will  continue 
"  until  we  come  unto  a  perfect  man,  unto  the  measure  of  the 
stature  of  the  fullness  of  Christ,"  (Eph.  iv.  13;)  or,  "until 
the  Church  of  God  shall  have  obtained  a  state  of  perfection 
in  a  future  world. "|  The  language  of  St.  John,  in  the  Reve- 
lations, is  to  the  same  effect.  To  the  Angel  or  Apostle  of 
the  Church  of  Ephesus,  he  says  :  "  repent,  or  I  will  come 
unto  thee  quickly,  and  will  remove  thy  candlestick  out  of  its 
place,"  or,  destroy  the  Church,  (Rev.  ii.  5  ;  and  comp.  i.  20  ;) 
which  threat  would  be  idle  and  unmeaning,  unless  the  Church 
and  the  office  of  Apostle  were  designed  to  be  permanent. 

The  argument  made  use  of  by  Paul,  in  his  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  leads  to  the  same  conclusion.  Thus  he  tells  us, 
that  "  perfection  came  not  by  the  Levitical  Priesthood,"  there- 
fore, "  the  Priesthood  was  changed,  and  has  now  become  an 
unchangeable  Priesthood."     (Heb.  vii.  11,  12,  24.) 

From  this,  we  are  led  to  infer,  that  the  Apostolic  Church, 


*  Rob.  p.  624. 
t  Storr  and  FlaU,  Elem.  Bib.  Theol.  B.  4,  Sec.  102,  111.  6. 


THE  MINISTRY  OF  DIVINE  APPOINTMENT.  243 

with  its  three  orders  of  ministerial  officers,  viz.,  Apostles, 
Presbyter-bishops,  and  Deacons,  was  designed  to  be  a  per- 
manent and  perpetual  institution — a  conclusion  sustained  by 
every  presumption  of  Scripture.  We  are  compelled  to  be- 
lieve, therefore,  that  this  conclusion  is  just,  and,  therefore, 
binding  on  all  succeeding  ages. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

THE  MINISTRY  OF   DIVINE  APPOINTMENT. 

Having  seen  that  the  Scriptural  evidence  leads  to  the  in- 
evitable conclusion,  that  the  ministry  was  of  divine  appoint- 
ment, and  that  it  was  designed  to  be  permanent,  and  is,  there- 
fore, of  universal  and  perpetual  obligation,  we  might  rest  our 
inquiry  here.  But  to  render  assurance  doubly  sure,  to  do 
away  all  possible  ground  of  cavil,  and  to  examine  all  the  ev- 
idence that  can  be  produced  on  the  subject,  we  shall  proceed 
to  inquire  how  the  primitive  Christians  understood  this  matter. 
But  first  we  must  ascertain  when  a  thing  can  properly  be  said 
to  be  of  divine  appointment  or  authority. 

In  reply  to  such  an  inquiry,  we  answer,  whatever  is  done  hy 
the  command  of  God,  is  of  divine  authority.  If,  then,  the 
Church  was  instituted  by  the  command  of  God,  then  the 
Church  is  of  divine  authority.  Or  if  any  part  of  its  organi- 
zation was  directed  by  God,  then  that  also,  is  of  divine  au- 
thority. And  if  the  Church,  or  any  part  of  its  organization,  is 
of  divine  appointment,  then  that  may  not  be  changed  or  mod- 
ified, except  by  divine  authority.  Now  we  have  seen  that  the 
Apostle  makes  the  ministry  of  the  church  of  divine  ap- 
pointment, (1  Cor.  xii.  28:  Eph.  iv.  11,  12;)  and  conse- 
quently, it  may  not  be  changed  or  modified,  but  by  the  same 


244  THE  MINISTRY  BELIEVED  IN  THE 

authority.  We  shall  now  proceed  to  show  how  this  thing 
was  understood  by  the  immediate  disciples  of  the  Apostles. 

Clement,  of  Rome,  A.  D.  87,  says  :  "  We  ought  to  take 
heed,  that  looking  into  the  depths  of  divine  knowledge,  we  do 
all  things  in  order*  whatsoever  our  Lord  hath  commanded  us 
to  do  :  that  we  perform  eucharistic  offering  and  public  wor- 
ship to  God,  at  their  appointed  seasons  ;  for  these  he  hath 
commanded  to  be  done,  not  rashly  and  disorderly,  but  at  cer- 
tain determinate  times  and  hours.  He  hath,  himself,  ordained 
by  his  supreme  will,  both  when  and  by  whom  they  are  to  be 
performed."!  And  in  another  place  :  "  The  Apostles  have 
preached  to  us  from  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ;  Jesus  Christ 
from  God,  Christ,  therefore,  was  sent  by  God;  and  the 
Apostles  by  Christ.  Thus  both  were  orderly  sent,  accord- 
ing to  the  will  of  God.  For  having  received  their  command, 
.  .  .  they  went  forth  proclaiming  that  the  kingdom  of  God 
was  at  hand.  And  thus  preaching  through  countries  and 
cities,  they  appointed  the  first  fruits  of  their  conversions  to  be 
overseers  and  ministers  over  such  as  should  afterwards  be- 
lieve."! In  the  opinion  of  Clement,  therefore,  the  ministry 
Avas  of  divine  appointment.  Ignatius  entertained  the  same 
opinion.  But  we  shall  understand  his  language  better  by 
considering  that  of  Clement,  of  Alexandria,  first. 

Clement,  of  Alexandria,  says  :^  "In  the  Church,  the  ce- 
lestial, is  the  image  of  the  terrestrial."  And  in  another  place 
he  adds: II  "I  take  the  progressions  of  Bishops,  Presbyters, 
and  Deacons,  to  be  imitations  of  the  Angelic  glory."  The 
point  here  brought  out,  is,  that  the  Church  Militant,  is  a  type 
of  the  Church  Triumphant.  This  seems  evidently  to  have 
been  the  opinion  of  Ignatius,  and  explains  language  which  on 
any  other  hypothesis  it  is  not  easy  to  understand.     We  quote  a 


*  Comp.  1  Cor.  xiv.  40.  fC  40.  XC.  42. 

§  Strom,  iv.  p.  500.  ||  Strom,  vi.  p.  6G7. 


SECOND     CENTURY  TO  BE  OF  DIVINE  APPOINTMENT.       245 

few  sentences,  inserting  in  brackets  what  the  language  evi- 
dently implies,  according  to  this  figurative,  or  typical  character 
of  the  Church. 

To  the  Magnesians,  he  says  :*  "  I  exhort  you  that  ye  study 
to  do  all  things  in  a  divine  concord,  your  Bishop  presiding  [in 
the  Church  iMilitant,  as]  in  the  place  of  God  [in  the  Church 
Triumphant ;]  and  your  Presbyters  [filling  in  the  Church  Mil- 
itant,] the  place  of  the  council  of  the  Apostles  [in  the  Church 
in  heaven."] 

To  the  Trallians  if  "  Let  all  reverence  the  Deacons  as 
[the  visible  ministers  of  the  invisible  minister,]  Jesus  Christ  ; 
and  the  Bishop,  as  [the  representative  in  the  visible  Chmxh  of] 
the  Father  [in  the  invisible  ;]  and  the  Presbyters,  as  [the  vis- 
ible representatives  in  the  Church  on  Earth  of]  the  council  of 
God  and  assembly  of  the  Apostles  [in  the  Church  above."] 

This  interpretation  gives  a  common  sense  meaning  to  lan- 
guage, which  otherwise  does  not  seem  to  have  any  meaning 
at  all,  or  at  least  a  very  extravagant  or  strange  one.  And  if 
this  be  the  meaning,  there  can  be  no  doubt  Ignatius  considered 
the  ministry  of  divine  appointment.  In  another  place,;];  he 
speaks  without  figure.  "  The  Bishop,  Presbyters,  and  Dea- 
cons, appointed  according  to  the  will  of  Jesus  Christ." 

We  see,  therefore,  that  Clement,  of  Rome,  A.  D.  87,  Igna- 
tius, A.  D.  107,  or  116,  and  Clement,  of  Alexandria,  A.  D. 
175,  all  held  the  Church  to  be  divine,  and  its  ministry  of  di- 
vine appointment.  To  which  we  may  add  Irenaeus^  and  Ter- 
tullian,|l  about  the  s?me  age.  But  we  need  not  enlarge  upon 
this  point,  as  all  the  evidence  tends  to  prove  that  this  was  the 
universal  opinion  in  that  time. 

*C.  6.  tC.  3.  :flntd.  Ep.  Phil. 

^  Adv.  Hser.  iii.  3.  ||  De.  Praes.  Haer.  cc.  21,  37. 


346       BISHOPS  SUCCESSORS  OF  THE  APOSTLES. 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

BISHOPS  SUCCESSORS  OF  THE  APOSTLES. 

The  next  point  to  which  our  attention  is  naturally  turned, 
is,  were  the  Bishops  of  the  second  century  considered  successors 
of  the  Apostles  in  governing  the  Churches  ?  To  this  we  an- 
swer yes,  as  is  evident  from  all  the  Fathers  who  have  written 
on  the  subject.  Thus  Clement,  of  Rome,  A.  D.  87,  says  : 
"  Our  Apostles  knew  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  con- 
tentions would  arise  concerning  the  office  of  Bishop,  [epi  tou 
onomatos  tes  episkopos.)  And,  therefore,  having  a  perfect 
foreknowledge  of  this,  they  appointed  persons,  as  we  have  be- 
fore said,  and  then  gave  direction  in  what  manner,  when  they 
should  die,  other  approved  men  should  succeed  in  their  min- 
istry.^''* Here  then  is  the  doctrine  of  a  future  succession, 
taught  so  explicitly  that  it  can  not  be  misapprehended.  The 
Church  of  Ephesus  was  commended  A.  D.  107,  as  one  who 
had  "  always  agreed  with  the  Apostles"!  and  the  Trallians 
for  "  continuing  in  the  Apostolic  character."!  So  Ignatius  is 
said  by  those  who  witnessed  his  martyrdom,  to  be  "  a  man  in 
all  things  like  unto  the  Apostles  who  governed  the  Church  at 
Antioch  with  care  ;"^  and  the  Church  at  Smyrna  describes 
Polycarp  as  *'  a  truly  Apostolical  prophetical  teacher  and 
Bishop  of  the  Church  at  Smyrna. ''||  The  whole  tenor  of  the 
language  at  this  period  denotes  that  those  Churches  were 
considered  the  most  eminent,  and  their  opinions  entitled  to  the 
most  weight,  who  had  an  Apostolic  man  for  a  Bishop,  and  had 
ever  maintained  their  Apostolic  character. 

In  the  latter  part  of  this  century,  however,  when  all  the 


*  Ep.  Cor.  c.  M.  t  r:pli-  c-  H-  I  Trail.  Introd. 

§  Martyr.  Ing.  c.  I.  ||  Martyr.  Pol.  c.  10. 


BISHOPS  SUCCESSORS  OF  THE  APOSTLES.  247 

Bishops  who  had  been  ordained  by  the  Apostles  were  dead, 
another  mode  of  reasoning  became  necessary,  and  gave  rise 
to  another  mode  of  proceeding,  to  prove  their  Apostolic  char- 
acter. This  consisted  in  appealing,  to  the  succession  of  Bish- 
ops, and  that  Church  which  could  not  trace  its  succession,  so 
that  its  first  Bishop  should  have  been  ordained  by  an  Apostle, 
or  one  commissioned  by  an  Apostle,  was  considered  as  want- 
ing in  one  of  the  essentials  of  a  Christian  Church.  And  the 
minister  who  could  not  trace  his  succession  in  the  registers  of 
the  office,  was  left  out  of  the  priesthood,  as  was  done  in  the 
days  of  Nehemiah.*  Thus  Tertullian,  in  reply  to  the  Heretics, 
A.  D.  190,  says  :  "  If  any  dare  to  mingle  themselves  with  the 
Apostolic  age,  so  that  they  may  appear  to  be  handed  down 
from  the  Apostles,  because  they  were  under  the  Apostles,  we 
are  able  to  say,  let  them  produce  the  origin  of  their  Churches, 
let  them  set  forth  the  series  of  their  Bishops,  so  running 
down  from  the  beginning  by  successions,  that  the  frst  Bishop 
may  have  some  of  the  Apostles,  or  Apostolic  men  who  continued 
with  the  Apostles,  for  their  author  or  predecessor.  For  in  this 
manner  the  Apostolical  Churches  trace  their  origin,  as  the 
Church  of  Smyrna,  having  Polycarp,  relates  that  he  was 
placed  there  by  St.  John.  In  like  manner  also,  the  rest  of 
them  show  that  they  have  grafts  of  the  Apostolic  seed,  who 
were  appointed  to  the  Episcopate  by  the  Apostles.  Let  the 
heretics  do  any  thing  like  this."t  Now  if  it  had  not  been  in 
the  days  of  Tertullian  a  well  known  fact,  that  all  the  Apos- 
tolic or  orthodox  Churches  were  able  to  trace  the  succession, 
of  their  Bishops  as  such,  to  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  and  to 
show  that  the  first  Bishop  had  been  ordained  by  an  Apostle, 
or  some  one  authorized  by  an  Apostle,  this  public  challenge  to 
the  heretics  would  never  have  been  made,  as  it  would  have  re- 
coiled upon  himself  with  redoubled  force. 

♦  Neh.  vii.  61.  f  De  Prae.  Haer.  c.  32. 


24S  BISHOPS  SUCCESSORS  OF  THE  APOSTLES. 

But  we  are  not  obliged  to  rely  on  the  testimony  of  Tertul- 
lian  alone,  for  proof  of  this  fact.  Ireneeus,  who  lived  and 
wrote  about  the  same  time,  and  who  had  himself  been  a  pupil 
of  Polycarp,  says  :  "  We  can  enumerate  those  who  were  ap- 
pointed by  the  Apostles,  Bishops  ia  the  Churches,  and  their 
successors,  even  unto  us."  And  again,  "  The  Apostles  wished 
those  to  be  very  perfect  and  irreprehensible,  in  all  things, 
whom  they  left  their  successors,  delivering  to  them  their 
own  place  of  government."  But  because  it  would  be  tedious 
to  enumerate  the  succession  in  all  the  Churches,  he  gave  only 
that  of  Rome,  when  he  adds  :  "  By  this  ordination  and  suc- 
cession, the  tradition  which  is  from  the  Apostles,  and  the  doc- 
trine of  the  truth  hath  come  even  to  us."*  We  have,  there- 
fore, the  positive  testimony  of  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian,  that  all 
the  Orthodox  Churches  of  their  day,  that  is,  from  A.  D.  1  50 
to  A.  D.  200,  were  able  to  trace  the  succession  of  their  Bish- 
ops, back  to  those  who  were  appointed  Bishops  by  the  Apos- 
tles, and  to  whom  the  Apostles  delivered  their  own  place  of 
governn^ent  in  the  Churches.  There  is,  therefore,  no  room 
for  doubt,  that  the  Bishops  of  the  second  century  were  be- 
lieved to  be  the  successors  of  the  Apostles  in  governing  the 
Churches.  Indeed,  the  primitive  writers  of  the  Church  seem 
not  to  have  entertained,  or  thought  of  the  possibility  of  any 
other  lawful  organization.  They  believed  that  all  legitimate 
authority  must  come  from  the  Apostles  ;  and,  consequently, 
that  all  lawful  rulers  in  the  Church  must  have  derived  their 
authority  from  the  Apostles,  or  some  of  the  Apostolic  men. 
They  knew  of  no  other  foundation  of  Christian  commimities, 
than  the  institution  of  Christ,  or  his  Apostles,  and  they  knew 
no  other  mode  of  transmitting  it,  than  that  of  regular  succes- 
sion, in  the  way  pointed  out,  or  sanctioned  by  the  founders  of 
the  Churches.     Those,  therefore,  who  would  seek  authority 

*  Adv.  HsEr.  iii.  3. 


EARLY   HISTORICAL  CHARACTERISTICS.  249 

for  Other  organizations,  and  for  other  modes  of  transmitting 
authority,  must  seek  elsewhere  than  in  the  practice  or  princi- 
ples of  the  primitive  Church. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

HISTORICAL     CHARACTERISTICS     OF     THE     FIRST    AND    SECOND 
CENTURIES. 

Having  seen  that  the  Primitive  Christians,  in  the  first  and 
second  centuries,  considered  the  Church  as  a  divine  institu- 
tion, and  its  ministry  of  divine  appointment  and  of  perpetual 
obligation,  and  that  the  Bishops  of  the  Churches  were  consid- 
ered, at  that  time,  as  the  successors  of  the  Apostles  in  the 
government  of  the  Churches,  we  shall  consider  several  other 
questions  immediately  connected  therewith.  But  before  we 
do  this,  we  ought  to  remark,  that  although  much  has  been  said 
and  written  concerning  the  organization  of  the  Church  in  the 
first  and  second  centuries,  we  fear  little  is  generally  known 
concerning  it.  And  this,  we  apprehend,  is  not  so  much  be- 
cause it  has  not  been  studied,  as  because  it  has  not  been  prop- 
erly studied.  Writers  on  this  subject  have  been  too  apt  to 
regard  the  whole  period  as  one,  and  have  not  sufficiently  at- 
tended to  the  different  circumstances  which  have  character- 
ized different  periods,  and  have  not  made  sufficient  difference 
between  the  statements  of  early  and  later  writers.  Hence, 
many  have  accused  the  Fathers  of  confusion  and  contradic- 
tion, when  the  whole  blame  was  on  the  reader,  and  not  on  the 
writer.  Thus,  a  writer  of  a  later  age  may  contradict  one  of 
a  much  earlier  period,  without  affecting  the  authoii  y  of  the 
early  writer  at  all.  Much  difficulty  and  confusion  has  been 
made  in  that  way.  This  was  wrong.  There  have  been  great 
22 


250  HISTORICAL  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE 

and  striking  differences  at  different  times,  producing  an  almost 
entire  change  of  ecclesiastical  phraseology,  in  reference  to 
ecclesiastical  organization,  which  we  should  never  lose  sight 
of.  What  the  most  important  of  these  differences  were,  and 
the  influences  they  have  exerted  on  the  history  of  the  Church, 
"within  the  first  and  second  centuries,  it  is  our  design  briefly 
to  point  out. 

Our  first  remark  is,  that  the  history  of  the  Church  in  this 
period,  may  be  divided  into  four  divisions,  each  characterized 
by  something,  which,  in  reference  to  the  account  given  of  its 
organization,  was  peculiar  to  that  time,  and  which  oi:ght  to  be 
regarded,  when  considering  the  history  of  that  period.  The 
first  of  these  periods  reaches  from  the  crucifixion  to  the  death 
of  St.  Paul,  A.  D.  67,  being  33  years,  which  was  properly 
and  emphatically  the  Apostolic  period ;  the  second,  extending 
from  the  death  of  St.  Paul  to  the  death  of  St.  John,  A.  D. 
100,  being  33  years,  and  including  that  period  when  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  Church  was  passing  from  the  hands  of  the 
Apostles  into  those  of  their  successors,  and  may,  therefore, 
be  called  the  transition  period  ;  the  third,  reaching  from  A.  D. 
100  to  150,  and  the  fourth,  from  A.  D.  150  to  200,  each  of 
which  we  propose  to  examine  by  itself. 

1.  The  peculiar  characteristic  of  the  first  period,  was  the 
general  superintendency  of  the  Churches  by  the  Apostles  in 
person,  having  Presbyters  and  Deacons  under  them,  as  minis- 
ters and  rulers  in  the  Church.  Out  of  this  relation  grew  three 
orders  of  ministers  in  the  Church,  called  at  this  time,  Apos- 
tles,* Presbyters  or  Bishops,  and  Deacons,  but  with  the  death 
of  St.  Paul,  as  far  as  history  informs  us,  ended  this  relation, 
and  of  consequence,  this  phraseology.     After  his  death,  there- 


*  During  tliis  period,  all  the  governors  of  the  Churches  were  called  Ajjos- 
tles.  (Theod.  Com.  Phil.  i.  1  ;  ii.  25.  1  Tim.  iii.  1.  Ambrose,  Com.  Eph. 
4.     Gal.  i.  1.     Bing.  B.  ii.  c.  2,  §  1.) 


FIRST  AND  SECOND  CENTURIES.  251 

fore,  we  hear  but  little  more  of  the  existence  of  Apostles  in 
the  Church,  in  any  capacity,  either  as  officers  or  not,  although 
St.  John  remained  thirty-three  years  longer. 

2.  The  second,  or,  as  it  may  properly  be  called,  the  transi- 
tion period  of  the  Church,  was  characterized  by  a  peculiar 
unsettled  state  of  ecclesiastical  phraseology,  consequent  on 
the  unsettled  state  of  things  in  the  Church  itself.  It  was  at 
this  time,  when  the  government  of  the  Churches  was  passing 
from  the  Apostles,  into  the  hands  of  their  successors,  that  the 
spirit  of  pride  and  insubordination,  which  even  the  authority 
of  the  Apostles  had  not  been  wholly  able  to  restrain,  would 
be  likely  to  break  out  with  the  greatest  violence,  and  rage 
with  the  greatest  fury.  And  the  unsettled  and  confused  state 
of  things,  thus  produced,  would  naturally  produce  a  confusion 
of  terms.  Besides,  though  the  power  and  duty  of  the  officers 
of  the  Church  may  have  been  well  defined,  and  generally 
understood,  there  was  a  difficulty  not  easily  surmounted. 
Most  of  the  Apostles  had  gone  to  their  rest,  but  some  re- 
mained, and  of  course  the  name  was  still  in  existence  and 
use.  To  such,  therefore,  all  appeals  must  be  made,  and  her- 
esy and  schism  would  rear  itself  under  the  pretense  of  Apos- 
tolic sanction.  This  state  of  things  was  peculiar  to  this 
period,  and  ended  at  the  death  of  St.  John,  A.  D.  100. 

While  this  state  of  things  continued,  the  three  orders  of 
jninisters  were  designated  by  different  names  from  those  used 
in  the  preceding  period.  The  first  and  highest  was  called  by 
St.  John,  the  Angel  of  the  Church,  while  Clement,  Bishop  of 
Rome,  the  only  writer  of  this  period  whose  works  have  been 
preserved,  calls  them  the  High  Priest^  the  Priests,  and  the  Le- 
vites,  and  the  people  or  members  of  the  Church  were,  for 
the  first  time,  denominated  by  him  laymen,  a  name  by  which 
they  have  ever  since  been  known.  The  language  of  Clement 
is  clear  to  this  point.  "  God  hath  himself  ordained  by  his  su- 
preme will,  both  where  and  by  what  persons  we  should  per- 
form our  service  and  offerings  unto  him.     They,  therefore, 


262  HISTORICAL   CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE 

who  make  their  oblations  at  the  appointed  seasons,  are  ac- 
cepted and  happy,  for  they  sin  not,  inasmuch  as  they  obey  the 
commandments  of  the  Lord  ;  for  to  the  Chief  Priest,  (Bishop,) 
his  peculiar  offices  are  given,  and  to  the  Priests,  (Presbyters,) 
their  own  place  is  appointed,  and  to  the  I.evites,  (Deacons,) 
appertain  their  proper  ministries  ;  and  the  layman  is  confined 
within  the  bounds  of  what  is  commanded  to  laymen."*  It 
will  be  evident  to  every  one  who  examines  the  epistle  of 
Clement  with  any  attention,  that  he  not  only  considered  the 
ministry  of  the  Church  as  divinely  instituted,  but  that  it  was 
also  made  by  the  same  authority,  to  consist  of  three  orders. 

Similar  language  is  occasionally  used  by  still  later  writers. 
Thus  Tertullian  speaks  of  the  "  High  Priest,  who  is  the  Bish- 
i  op."t  And  Jerome  tells  us,  that  the  Bishops,  Priests,  and 
Deacons,  hold  the  same  place  in  the  Christian  Church,  that 
the  High  Priest,  Priests,  and  Levites  did,  in  the  Jewish 
Church.J  This  language  also  occurs  at  a  still  later  period. 
Thus,  in  the  Liturgy  of  St.  Basil, §  "  Grant,  therefore,  that 
we,  thy  servants,  my  Fathers  and  Brethren,  the  Priests  and 
Levites,  and  all  thy  faithful  people,  may  all  be  freed,"  etc.  The 
Bishop  is  also  called  the  "  High  Priest,"  and  his  office  the 
"  High  Priesthood,"  in  the  Apostolical  Constitutions,  in  the 
third  or  fourth  century  ;I|  in  the  ancient  Ordinal  of  the  Greek 
Church,  for  consecrating  a  Bishop  ;1[  also,  in  the  Ordinals  of 
the  Gothic  Churches,  before  A.  D.  550  ;**  in  the  Pontifical  of 
Egbert,  Archbishop  of  York,  A.  D.  800  ;tt  and  occasionally 
by  other  writers. 

3.  The  peculiar  characteristic  of  the  third  period,  consisted 
in  ascertaining  the  extent  of  authority  appertaining  to  the 
clerical  office,  and  in  settling  the  meaning  of  the  ecclesiasti- 
cal phraseology  as   it  remains  to  the  present  day.     Thus, 

*Ep.  Cor.  c.  40.  fDe  Bap.  c.  17.  :^Ep.  Evang. 

§  Brett,  p.  79.  ||  B.  viii.  4,  5. 

IT  Guar.  Ritual,  Graec.  pp.  302—4.         **Murator.  vol.  II.  p.  670. 
tfMartene  Ant.  Ecc.  Kit.  L.  i.  c.  8,  Art.  U,  Old.  2 


FIRST  AND  SECOND  CENTURIES.  253 

within  seven  years  after  the  death  of  St.  John,  we  find  that 
the  three  orders  of  ministers  were  denominated  Bishop,  Pres- 
byter, and  Deacon,  and  to  each  was  assigned  the  same  office, 
together  with  nearly  or  quite  the  same  power  and  duty,  as 
appertains  to  those  offices  to  the  present  day.  This  distinc- 
tion of  name  and  office  was  made  by  Ignatius,  Bishop  of  An- 
tioch,*  and  by  Polycarp,  Bishop  of  Smyrna,  A.  D.  107  ;|  by 
the  account  given  of  the  martyrdom  of  Ignatius,  by  eye  wit- 
nesses of  the  event,  about  A.  D.  108  or  109  ;J  by  the  Church 
at  Smyrna,  in  the  Circular  Epistle  which  they  addressed  to 
the  other  Churches,  on  the  martyrdom  of  Polycarp,*^  about  167 
or  168,  which  properly  belongs  to  this  period,  though  written 
a  little  later. 

A  good  and  sufficient  reason  for  the  strong  language  of  Ig- 
natius, in  reference  to  the  various  orders  of  ministers,  and  the 
obligation  of  obedience  to  them,  may  be  found  in  the  peculiar 
evils  of  those  times.  The  presence,  and  of  course,  much  of 
the  influence  of  the  Apostles,  was  withdrawn  ;  the  enemies 
of  the  Church  were  untiring  in  their  opposition  ;  heresies, 
foul  and  dark,  sprung  up  in  the  hearts,  and  were  manifested 
in  the  lives  of  hypocritical  friends  and  misguided  devotees, 
while  schisms  and  discords ||  were  originated  by  the  envy  of 

*Ep.  Eph.  cc.  2,  4,  5,  20.  Mag.  oc.  2,  3,  4,  6,  7,  13.  Trail,  cc.  2,  3, 
7,  12.     Ptiii.  Intd.  cc.  4,  7,  10.     Smyr.  cc.  8,  12.     Pol.  c.  6. 

fEp.  Phil.  cc.  5,  6,  13.  Comp.  with  Intd.  and  Martyr.  Ign.  c.  3,  and 
Martyr.  Pol.  c.  16. 

^  Martyr.  Ign.  cc.  1,  3.  §  Martyr.  Pol.  c.  16. 

II  The  first  attempt  to  corrupt  the  faith  of  the  Church  in  Jerusalem,  was 
by  Thebuthis,  who  was  disappointed  in  not  having  been  elected  Bishop,  ia 
place  of  Simeon,  the  second  Bishop  of  that  city.  (Heg.  Com.  in  Euseb.  iv. 
22.)  One  of  the  earliest  heresies  in  the  Roman  Church,  the  Novatian, 
arose  A.  D.  252,  from  a  similar  cause.  (Euseb.  vi.  43.)  Many  similar 
cases  are  mentioned  in  the  early  history  of  the  Church,  fully  verifying  the 
prediction  of  the  Apostles,  that  dissension  should  arise  on  account  of  the 
ministry.  (Clem.  Rom.  Ep.  Cor.  c.  44.) 
22* 


254  HISTORICAL  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE 

disappointed  ambition,  or  the  cunning  of  false  professors* 
At  such  a  time,  deep,  heartfelt,  and  pervading  piety,  united  to 
the  highest  degree  of  wisdom  and  skill,  and  accompanied  by 
bold,  decisive,  and  energetic  action,  were  indispensable  requi- 
sites in  the  character  of  those  who  were  to  be  the  defenders 
of  the  Church — who  were  to  bear  the  ark  of  God  with  safety 
through  the  difficulties  and  dangers  which  so  thickly  beset  it 
on  every  side.  And  such  was  the  character  of  Ignatius,  as 
every  one  can  see,  who  reads  his  epistles  ;  and  such,  save  the 
boldness  and  energy  of  character,  was  Polycarp,  whose  praise 
is  in  all  the  Churches,  and  such,  no  doubt,  were  many  others, 
whose  names  are  only  recorded  in  the  Lamb's  book  of  life. 

We  shall  make  a  few  extracts,  that  our  readers  may  see  in 
what  light  these  things  were  viewed  by  the  Christians  of  this 
period.  The  Church  at  Philadelphia  is  saluted  by  Ignatius  : 
"  Especially  if  at  unity  with  the  Bishop,  and  the  Presbyters, 
and  Deacons  with  him,  appointed  according  to  the  will  of 
Jesus  Christ,  whom  he  hath  settled  according  to  his  own 
will,  in  all  firmness  by  the  Holy  Spirit."!  From  the  Epistle 
to  the  Ephesians,  we  learn  that  Onesimus  was  Bishop  of  the 
Church  in  that  city,|  having  under  him  Presbyters  and  Dea- 
cons,^ and  that  that  Church  "  had  always  agreed  with  the 
Apostles."!!  At  the  same  time,  Damas  was  Bishop  of  the 
Church  at  Magnesia,^!  having  Presbyters  and  Deacons  under 
him.**  We  learn  from  the  same  source,  that  Polybius  was 
Bishop  of  the  Church  at  Tralles,tt  and  that  there  were  many 
Presbyters  and  Deacons  in  that  Church  at  the  same  time.JJ 
At  this  time,  also,  Polycarp  was  Bishop  of  the  Church  at 
Smyrna,^^  having  many  Presbyters  and  Deacons  subject  to 

*  See  a  remarkable  passage  on  this  subject  Irora  Hegessipus,  A.  D.  150, 
inEuseb.  iii.  32. 

t  Intd.  Ep.  Phil.  ^  Ep.  Eph.  c.  I.  §Cc.  2,  4,  20. 

II  CIO.  IT  Ign.  Ep.  Mag.  c.  2.      **  Co.  2,  3,  6,  7,  13. 

tt  Ign.  Ep.  Trail,  c.  1.        t|Cc.  2,  3,  7,  12,  13. 

§§  Ign.  Ep.  Pol.  Intd.    Ep.Mag.c.15.    Martyr.  Ign.  c.3.   Martyr.  Pol.  c.  16. 


FIRST  AND  SECOND  CENTURIES.  255 

him*  And  to  the  Philadelphians,  Ignatius  says  :  "  Give  ear 
to  the  Bishop,  and  to  the  Presbytery,  and  to  the  Deacons."! 
To  the  Trallians :  "  He  that  doeth  any  thing  without  the  Bish- 
op and  Presbyters,  and  Deacons,  is  not  pure  in  his  con- 
science ;"!  and  in  another  place  he  says  :  "  without  these, 
there  is  no  Church. "§  It  is  certain,  therefore,  that  at  this 
time  there  were  three  orders  of  ministers  in  the  Church  ;  and 
that  the  distinction  between  Bishop  and  Presbyter  was  well 
understood. 

But  we  are  not  obliged  to  rely  on  the  authority  of  Ignatius 
alone,  for  evidence  that  this  distinction  was  well  understood 
when  he  wrote.  The  account  given  of  the  martyrdom  of  Ig- 
natius, ||  and  the  epistle  written  by  the  Church  of  Smyrna  on 
the  martyrdom  of  Polycarp,^  as  well  as  Irenaeus,  who  was 
the  disciple  of  Poly  carp,**  all  agree  in  calling  Polycarp  Bishop 
of  Smyrna.  This  Polycarp,  in  the  epistle  he  wrote  to  the 
Church  at  Philippi,  says  :  "  The  epistles  which  Ignatius 
wrote  to  us,  i.  e.  that  to  Polycarp^  and  that  to  the  Church  of 
Smyrna,  and  others,  as  many  as  we  have  we  send  to  you,  ac- 
cording to  your  order  ;"  when  he  adds,  "  they  treat  of  faith  and 
of  patience,  and  of  all  things  pertaining  to  edif  cation  in  the 
Z/or</. "tt  Now  we  have  seen  that  Polycarp  was  expressly 
called  Bishop  in  one  of  these  same  epistles,  and  that  the  dis- 
tinction between  Bishop  and  Presbyter  was  made  in  the  other, 
and  hence,  as  he  has  endorsed  these  same  epistles  without 
exception,  he  has  adopted  the  distinction  in  question.  The 
testimony  of  Polycarp  on  this  subject  is,  therefore,  precisely 
that  of  Ignatius. 

4.  The  peculiar  characteristic  of  the  fourth  period,  was 
the  introduction  of  technical  terms  of  ecclesiastical  jurispru- 

*Ign.  Ep.  Smyr.  cc.  8,  12.     Ep.  Pol.  6.     Pol.  Ep.  Phil.  Intd.  cc.  5,  6,  11. 
tEp.  Phil.  C.7.  |Ep.  Tiall.c.S.  §  lb.  e.  3. 

II c.  3.  ire.  16. 

**  Ep.  Ad.  Flor.  Euseb.  iv.  14,  v.  19.  ft  C.  13. 


256  HISTORICAL  CHARACTERISTICS. 

dence  and  theological  science,  from  the  Greek  into  the  Latin 
tongue,  accompanied  by  an  enlargement  of  the  ecclesiastical 
phraseology,  both  in  the  Greek  and  Latin  Churches.  Thus 
we  find  almost  at  the  commencement  of  it,  Hegessippus  in 
Palestine,  A.  D.  160,*  and  Dionysius,  Bishop  of  Corinth,! 
speaking  of  the  office  of  Bishop  as  "  the  Episcopate  and  the 
Episcopal  seat."  The  same  language  was  also  used  by  the 
Churches  of  Lyons  and  Vienna,  about  the  middle  of  this  pe- 
riod, in  a  Circular  Epistle  which  they  addressed  to  the  other 
ChurcheSjJ  immediately  after  the  martyrdom  of  their  Bishop, 
Pothhius,  and  from  this  time  to  the  year  200,  it  is  of  frequent 
occurrence.  But  what  proves  more  conclusively  than  any 
thing  else  the  general  use  of  such  words,  is  the  fact,  that  they 
had,  before  the  middle  of  this  period,  become  technical  terms 
in  ecclesiastical  history,  and  though  Greek  words,  were  in 
common  use  among  those  who  spoke  the  Latin  language,  and 
are  used  by  the  Latin  writers  without  any  intimation  of  their 
having  been  borrowed  from  another  tongue,  which  could  not 
have  been  done,  had  they  not  been  common  words.  This 
usage  is  frequent  in  Tertullian,  the  oldest  of  the  Latin  Fath- 
ers, who  writes  the  Greek  Episcopos,  "  Bishop,"  Presbuteros, 
"  Presbyter,"  and  Diaconos,  "  Deacon,"  with  Roman  let- 
ters, only  changing  their  terminations  to  accommodate  them 
to  the  genius  of  that  language,  as  Episcopus,  Presbyter,  and 
Diaconus.  So  also  he  copied  the  word  Eucharistia,  "  the 
Lord's  Supper,"^  Ecclesia,  "the  Church"  Exomologesis,  "  con- 
fession,"||  baptisma,  "  baptism,"  and  some  other  words.  We 
conceive  that  this  fact  alone,  is  ample  proof  that  long  before 
the  days  of  Tertullian,  the  distinction  between  Bishop  and 
Presbyter  was  perfectly  understood  and  definitely  settled,  as 

*  Euseb.  ii.  23,  iv.  22.  f  Euseb.  iv.  23.  ^  Euseb.  v.  1. 

§  De  Orat.  c.  14.     De.  Cor.  c.  3.     De  Praescr.  Haer.  c.  36,  37,  etc. 
II  De  Pu?nit.  c.  9. 


ONE  BISHOP  IN  A  CHURCH.  257 

well  also  as  Episcopate  and  Episcopal  seat,  which  are  not 
unfrequent  in  his  writings  ;  that  they  had  become,  as  it  were, 
naturalized  in  that  language,  and  must,  therefore,  have  been 
long  familiar  to  Christians  of  different  nations. 

The  leading  characteristics  of  these  different  periods  in  ref- 
erence to  the  organization  of  the  Church,  was,  therefore,  in  the 
firsts  there  were  three  orders  of  ministers,  called  Apostles, 
Presbyters,  and  Deacons ;  in  the  second,  there  were  also  three 
orders  of  ministers,  called  High-Priests,  Priests,  and  Levites, 
and  the  word  layman  was  introduced  to  designate,  as  it  ever 
since  has,  the  members  of  the  Church  ;  in  the  third,  there 
were  also  three  orders,  then  denominated,  as  they  ever  since 
have  been,  by  the  name  of  Bishop,  Presbyter,  and  Deacon ; 
and  in  the  fourth  period,  the  ecclesiastical  phraseology  was 
enlarged  in  the  Greek,  and  transplanted  into  the  Latin  tongue,* 
each  of  which  should  be  borne  in  mind  when  we  have  occa- 
sion to  consult  the  writings  of  the  primitive  Christians,  in 
reference  to  the  organization  of  the  primitive  Church. 


CHAPTER  XX. 

ONE  BISHOP  IN  A  CHURCH,  BUT  MANY  INFERIOR  CLERGY. 

That  there  was  to  be  one  and  only  one  Bishop  in  a  Church, 
may  fairly  be  inferred  from  what  we  have  already  proved  ; 
for  if,  in  every  Apostolic  Church  there  was  one  Apostle  or 
Apostolic  Bishop,  having  under  him  a  plurality  of  Presbyter- 
bishops  and  Deacons,  then  it  is  reasonable   to   conclude,  that 

*  Some  terms  of  ecclesiastical  technology  were  also  made  in  the  Latin 
language.  Thus  Tertullian  seems  to  have  made,  from  the  adjective  Jus- 
TiFicus,  the  verb  J  iistijico,  from  whence  our  verb  to  justify,  and  its  deriva- 
tives. 


259  ONE  BISHOP  IN  A  CHURCH, 

there  was  but  one  Apostle,  or  Apostolic  Bishop  in  a  Church. 
That  this  was  the  case  at  Jerusalem,  Crete,  Ephesus,  Philippi, 
Smyrna,  Pergamos,  Thyatira,  Sardis,  Philadelphia,  Laodicea, 
Rome,  Athens,  Antioch,  Alexandria,  Magnesia,  Trallia,  Col- 
losse,  and  elsewhere,  we  have  already  shown ;  consequently, 
the  admitted  uniformity  of  the  Apostolic  Churches  authorizes 
us  to  infer  a  similar  organization  in  all  other  Churches.  But 
this  is  not  the  whole  amount  of  the  evidence  we  have  on  the 
subject.  The  language  of  Ignatius  is  clearly  to  the  same 
purpose. 

Thus  he  says  to  the  Smyrneans  :*  "  Let  no  one  do  any  thing 
which  belongs  to  the  Church,  separately  from  the  Bishop. 
Let  that  Eucharist  be  looked  upon  as  well  established,  which 
is  either  offered  by  the  Bishop  or  one  whom  the  Bishop  has 
approved."  And  to  the  Magnesians  he  saysrf  "Wherefore 
come  ye  all  together  as  unto  one  temple  of  God,  as  unto  one 
altar,  as  unto  one  Jesus  Christ."  So  also  the  Apostolical 
Canons^  go  upon  the  supposition,  that  all  ecclesiastical  au- 
thority within  certain  limits  was  vested  solely  in  one  Bishop. 
And  so  rigidly  was  this  rule  enforced,  that  any  Bishop  who 
should  presume  to  perform  ordination,  or  any  other  Episcopal 
function,  in  any  place  not  within  his  jurisdiction,  without  the 
consent  of  the  Bishop,  or  if  no  Bishop,  of  those  who  had  the 
direction  of  ecclesiastical  matters,  he  was  to  be  deposed.^ 
And  this  rule  was  subsequently  recognized  and  adopted  by 
several  general  Councils. ||  That  this  principle  was  a  law  of 
the  Church  before  250,  is  evident  from  the  epistle  of  Corne- 
lius, Bishop  of  Rome,  addressed  to  Fabius,  Bishop  of  An- 
tioch, concerning  Novatian  and  his  schism.TI 

*  C.  8.  fC.  7.  jCan.  2S,  29,  31,  33,  34,  66.        §  Can.  28. 

§  Nice,  Can.  15.  Antioch,  Can.  13.  3  Constantinople,  Can.  1.  1  Car- 
thage, Can.  5,  10.  3  Carthage,  Can.  20,  and  in  England,  Coun.  Hereford, 
A.  D.  673,  Can.  2,  6,  8. 

II  E\).  Cor.  ad  Fab.  in  Euseb.  vi.  43. 


BUT  MANY  INFERIOR  CLERGY.  259 

There  is,  however,  one  exception  to  this,  that  of  assistant 
Bishops.  The  first  instance  on  record  of  the  translation  of  a 
Bishop,  was  about  A.  D.  250,  when  Alexander,  Bishop  of 
Capadocia,  was  elected  assistant  to  Narcissus,  Bishop  of  Je- 
rusalem. This  is  also  the  first  recorded  instance  of  an  assist- 
ant Bishop.*  There  is  also  another  instance  in  early  times 
of  two  Bishops  in  one  city,  that  of  Novatian,  who  procured 
himself  to  be  ordained  Bishop  of  Rome,  while  Cornelius  held 
the  Episcopate,  for  which  he  was  condemned  by  a  large 
council,  and  excommunicated  as  a  schismatic. f 

But  though  there  was  never  but  one  Bishop  in  a  Church, 
there  were,  when  the  Church  was  completely  organized, 
many  Presbyters  and  Deacons.  We  have  already  seen  that 
in  the  Apostolic  Church,  there  was  a  plurality  of  Presbyters 
and  Deacons  under  every  Apostle,  or  Apostolic  Bishop.  This 
arrangement  also  continued  in  the  succeeding  age.  That 
there  were  a  number  of  Presbyters  in  the  Church  of  Corinth, 
when  Clement  wrote  his  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  is  evident 
from  his  language,  for  he  speaks  of  "  Presbyters  that  have  been 
driven  out  of  the  ministry  i"|  of  "  a  sedition  against  the  Pres- 
byters,"^ and  exhorts  them  to  be  "  at  peace  with  the  Presby- 
ters." ||  There  were  too  a  number  of  Presbyters  and  Deacons 
in  the  Church  in  Smyrna  when  Poiycarp  wrote  his  Epistle  to 
the  Philippians,  A.  D.  107  ;^  a  number  of  both  in  the  Church 
at  Philippi  ;**  as  also  at  the  same  time  in  the  Church  in  Ephe- 
sus  ;|t  in  Magnesia  ;JJ  in  Trallia,^§  and  in  Philadelphia.  ||||  So 
A.  D.  176,  there  were  many  Presbyters  in  the  Church  at  hy- 
ons.TITI  And  at  A.  D.  252,  there  were  no  less  i\icLX\.  forty -six 
Presbyters  and  seven  Deacons  in  the  Church   in  Rome.*** 

*Eupeb.  vi.  11.  tEuseb.  V.  43.  %C.  AA.  §C.  47. 

II  Cc.  54,  57.  IT  Intd.  Ep.  Ign.  Ep.  Smyr.  e.  8.     Ep.  Pol.  c.  6. 

♦*  Cc.  5, 6,  11.  tt  Ign.  Ep.  Eph.  cc.  2,  4,  20. 

%i  Tgn.  Ep.  Mag.  cc.  2,  6,  7,  13.  §§  Ign.  Ep.  Tral.  cc.  2,  3,  7. 

Illllgn.  Ep.  Phil.  cc.  4,  7,  10.  HIT  Ep.  Ecc.  Lug.  in  Euseb.  v.  4. 

♦**  Ep.  Com.  ad  Fab.  Euseb.  vi.  43. 


260  ORIGINAL  INDEPENDENCF  OF  BISHOPS. 

The  number  of  Presbyters  and  Deacons  would  of  course  de- 
pend upon  the  number  of  Christians.  The  consideration  of 
this  point  will  be  resumed  in  its  proper  place. 


CHAPTER  XXI. 

INDEPENDENCE  OF  THE  BISHOPS. 

The  original  independence  of  each  Bishop,  of  every  other 
Bishop,  may  be  inferred,  (1,)  from  the  very  nature  of  the  con- 
stitution of  the  Church,  for  we  have  seen  that  the  lanffuage 
of  the  Apostle,  giving  to  every  Church  a  head,  negatives  the 
idea  of  a  head  over  a  head.  (2.)  From  the  nature  of  the 
Apostolic  commission,  v^^hich  confers  equal  authority  upon  all ; 
and  (3)  from  the  fact,  that  in  every  Apostolic  Church  there 
was  one  Apostle  or  Apostolic  Bishop,  having  under  him  a  plu- 
rality of  Presbyter-bishops  and  Deacons.  The  same  infer- 
ence might  also  be  drawn  from  the  fact,  that  the  earliest  Fath- 
ers make  no  mention  of  any  superiority  of  one  Bishop  over 
another.  This  conclusion  is  also  sustained  by  the  course 
pursued  by  the  Eastern  and  Western  Bishops,  relative  to  the 
time  of  keeping  Easter.  In  the  Eastern  Churches  it  was  cus- 
tomary to  keep  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  moon,  as  the  festival 
of  Christ's  resurrection  ;  while  in  the  Western  Churches 
the  Sunday  following  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  moon  was  ob- 
served for  this  purpose.  This  difference  of  practice  gave 
rise  to  much  discussion  and  controversy  ;  and  Polycarp,  Bishop 
of  Smyrna,  and  Anicetus,  Bishop  of  Rome,  about  A.  D.  166, 
held  a  conference  on  the  subject.  About  A.  D.  200,  several 
Councils  were  held,  one  at  Caesarea,  at  which  Theophilus, 
Bishop  of  that  Church,  presided  ;  one  at  Jerusalem,  at  which 
Narcissus  presided  ;  one  in  Pontus,  at  which  Palmas  presided  ; 


ORIGINAL  INDEPENDENCE  OF  BISHOPS.  261 

and  another  in  Gaul,  at  which  Irenaeus  presided  ;  all  of  which 
recommended  the  practice  of  the  Western  Churches.*  Another 
Council  of  Asiatic  Bishops  was  convened  at  Ephesus,  at 
which  Polycrates,  Bishop  of  that  city,  presided,  which  ad- 
hered to  the  custom  of  the  Eastern  Churches,  defending  it  by- 
reference  to  the  practice  of  the  Apostle  St.  John.f  At  the 
same  time  Victor,  Bishop  of  Rome,  interposed  his  influence, 
first  to  persuade,  and  second,  to  compel  the  Bishops  of  Asia 
to  come  into  the  practice  of  the  Western  Churches,  but  with- 
out effect.  To  all  this  Polycrates  replied  in  an  epistle,  from 
which  we  make  the  following  extract. 

"  I,  therefore,  brethren, am  sixty-ji.veyed.Ts  in  the  Lord,  [i.e. 
have  been  a  Christian  sixty-five  years,]  who  having  conferred 
with  the  brethren  throughout  the  world,  and  having  studied 
the  whole  sacred  Scriptures,  am  not  at  all  alarmed  at  those 
things  with  which  I  am  threatened  to  intimidate  me."|  The 
language  of  St.  Cyprian  is  equally  pertinent  and  decisive. 
"  Our  Lord  gives  to  all  the  Apostles  an  equal  power,  and 
says  :  '  As  my  Father  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you ;  receive 
ye  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  whosoever  sins  ye  remit,  they  shall  be 
remitted  to  him,  and  whosoever  sins  ye  retain,  they  shall  be  re- 
tained.' .  .  .  Certainly  the  other  Apostles  also  were  what  Peter 
was,  endowed  with  an  equal  fellowship  of  honor  and  power. "§ 

A  custom,  however,  was  early  introduced  into  the  Church 
of  holding  Synods  in  the  principal  or  Metropolitan  cities,  at 
which  the  Bishops  of  those  cities  presided.  In  this  way  the 
Bishops  of  such  cities  came  to  be  considered  as  presiding 
Bishops,  and  hence  were  called  Metropolitans,  and  some- 
times Primates.  This  arrangement  was  in  existence  as  early 
as  the  second  century,  and  the  Apostolical  Canons ||  directed 
that  two  such  Synods  should  be  held  each  year,  at  which  the 


*  Euseb.  vi.  23.  f  Euseb.  iii.  c.  31.     Ep.  Polycr.    Eiiseb.  v  i.  c.  24 

:}:  Apud  Euseb.  vi.  24.  §  Unity  Church,  c.  3.  ||  Can.  30. 

23 


262  ORIGINAL  INDEPENDENCE  OF  BISHOPS. 

Bishops  were  to  examine  each  other  concerning  their  religious 
faith,  to  settle  all  ecclesiastical  difficulties,  and  to  confer  with 
each  other  on  subjects  of  the  most  weighty  importance. 
They  also  directed  that  no  Bishop  should  undertake  any  thing 
of  general  interest,  without  consent  of  his  Metropolitan.  Nor 
might  the  Metropolitan  himself  undertake  any  thing  of  genera/ 
interest,  without  the  consent  of  the  Synod.*  But  each  Bishop 
was  permitted  to  do  whatever  pertained  to  his  own  Diocese, 
without  consulting  any  other  Bishop. f  The  existence  of  Me- 
tropolitans or  Primates,  about  A.  D.  250,  is  testified  to  by 
Cyprian  ;|  and  their  authority  and  precedence  was  regulated 
by  the  Council  of  Antioch,  A.  D.  341.^  There  is  abundant 
evidence  that  the  independence  of  every  Bishop  continued 
many  years  later,  and  in  many  places  continues  to  the  present 
day.  We  are  authorized,  therefore,  to  assert  the  original  in- 
dependence of  each  Bishop,  of  every  other  Bishop. 

Such  an  independence  is  also  necessarily  supposed,  by  the 
very  theory  of  the  Apostolical  system.  The  primitive  Christ- 
ians, as  we  have  seen,  regarded  the  Church  as  one,  with  a 
visible  organization,  typical  of  the  iiivisible  and  spiritual  king- 
dom, in  which  Christ  is  the  Great  and  only  Head.  Since, 
then,  there  is  but  one  invisible  Bishop,  so,  theoretically,  there 
is  but  one  visible  Bishop.  Consequently,  every  Bishop  at  the 
time  of  his  consecration,  becomes  by  virtue  of  that  consecra- 
tion, a  Bishop,  not  of  any  particular  Church,  but  of  the  whole 
Church  Catholic.  Each  Bishop  is,  therefore,  strictly  speak- 
ing. Bishop  of  the  Universal  Church.  But  since  it  is  impos- 
sible that  any  one  man  should  perform  all  the  duties  devolving 
upon  a  Bishop,  the  Church  within  a  particular  region  is  re- 
garded, for  certain  purposes,  as  the  Church,  and  its  Bishop  is 
limited  in  the  exercise  of  his  power  to  that  particular  territory. 
But,  his  power  extending  originally  to  the  whole  Church,  he 

*  Can.  27.  f  Can.  27.  :tEp.  45.  §  Can.  9. 


PRIMITIVE  RULES  CONCERNING  BISHOPS.  263 

may  still  perform  the  functions  of  his  office,  in  places  not 
within  his  territory,  when  properly  called  upon  to  do  so.  It 
follows  from  this,  that  every  Bishop  in  the  Church  Militant,  is 
a  type  of  the  Head  of  the  Church  Triumphant,  so  that  each 
individual  Bishop  is  but  a  reiteration  of  the  same  type,  the 
Episcopate  itself  being  hut  one*  The  language  of  St,  Cyp- 
rian upon  this  point  is  striking  and  pertinent :  "  The  Episcopate 
is  one  ;  it  is  a  whole,  in  which  each  enjoys  a  full  possession."! 
If,  then,  the  Episcopate  be  one,  "  in  which  each  enjoys  a  full 
possession,"  it  is  impossible  there  should  be  any  Bishop  on 
earth  over  other  Bishops.  The  Romanists,  therefore,  have 
made  ?i  fourth  order  in  the  ministry,  in  the  person  of  the  Pope, 
a  thins  that  was  unknown  to  all  the  ancients. 


CHAPTER  XXII. 

CUSTOMS   OF  THE  CHURCH. 

Having  considered  the  most  important  points  touching  the 
order  and  organization  of  the  primitive  Church,  we  shall 
glance  hastily  at  some  customs  and  practices  which  prevailed 
in  the  Church  at  the  close  of  the  second  century.  Referen- 
ces are  occasionally  made  to  later  authorities,  as  showing  the 
continuance  of  the  same  regulations. 

Bishops. — To  the  powers  and  duties  elsewhere  enumera- 
ted, as  pertaining  to  the  Bishop,  we  may  add  the  following. 
They  were  to  superintend  and  take  care  of  the  property  belong- 
ing to  the  Church,!  but  were  not  permitted  to  apply  any  of  it 

*  See  on  this  subject,  Thornton's  note  to  Cyprian,  De  Unit.  Ecc.  in  Cyp. 
Treat.  Svo.  Oxford,  1839,  p.  150. 
t  De  Unit.  Ecc.  c.  4.  %  Apos.  Can.  31,  33,  34. 


264  PRIMITIVE  RULES  CONCERNING  BISHOPS 

to  their  own  use,  nor  to  the  use  of  their  friends,  except  to  sup- 
ply their  own  absolute  necessities,  or  to  assist  needy  and  travel- 
ing brethren.  Bishops  were  forbid  to  engage  in  secular  pur- 
suits,* or  to  receive  usury,  f  Bishops  also  were  to  be  deposed, 
who  separated  themselves  from  their  wives,  under  pretext  of 
devotion  ;  who  refused  to  receive  the  Eucharist ;  who  com- 
municated with  persons  who  had  been  excommunicated  ;:j:  or 
who  had  been  guilty  of  fornication,  or  perjury,  or  theft,§  or 
drunkenness,  or  playing  at  dice,||  or  any  other  unlawful  act.^f 
So  were  those  who  procured  their  places  by  money,  or  who 
made  use  of  civil  rulers  to  procure  the  office.  So  also  were 
those  who  re-baptized  a  person  who  had  been  sufficiently  bap- 
tized ;**  or  who  submitted  to  a  re-ordination,  or  who  performed 
ordination  out  of  his  own  jurisdiction,  without  the  consent  of 
the  ecclesiastical  rulers  there  ;tt  or  who  abstained  from  mat- 
rimony, meat,  or  wine,  from  pretended  religious  abhorrence  ;|J 
or  who  should  be  found  eating  at  a  public  house,  except  when 
traveling. §§  And  so  were  those  who  neglected  the  clergy  or 
people  of  their  charge  ;|||l  or  refused  to  supply  the  wants  of 
needy  clergymen,  when  able  to  do  so  ;  or  who  held  commun- 
ion with  heretics  ;  or  who  should  read  the  spurious  books  in 
Church  ;*^^  or  who  denied  their  office  ;  or  who  celebrated  the 
festivals  either  of  the  Jews  or  heathen  ;***  or  who,  having 
been  ordained, refused  to  enter  upon  the  duties  of  their  office.ftt 

*  Apos.  Can.  31,  33,  34,  4.     Elvira,  Can.  18. 
fib.  36.     Aries,  Can.  12.     Nice,  Can.  17.     Elvira,  Can.  20. 
ilh.  3,  0,  8,  9.     Laod.  Can.  33.         §  lb.  IS.     Elvira,  Can.  19. 
II  lb.  35.     Elvira,  Can.  79.  IT  lb.  21.     Anlioch,  Can.  4. 

**  lb.  22,  23,  39.     Carthage,  A.  D.  252.     Aries,  Can.  8.      1  Carth.  1. 
ttlb.  28,  60.     Nice,  Can.  15.    Antiocli,  Can.  3.    3  Const.  Can.    1  Carth. 
Can.  5,  10.     3  Carth.  Can.  20. 

ii  lb.  43,  45.     Alex.  Can.  1.    Ancyra,  Can.  14.    Gangra,  Can.  9,  10,  14. 

§§Ib.  46.     Gangra,  Can.  24.     Laod.  Can.  55.     3  Carth.  Can.  27. 

II II  lb.  50.     4  Carth.  Can.  50.  ITIT  lb.  51,  37,  52.     Laod.  Can.  59. 

***  lb.  54,  57,  63.     Elvira,  Can.  50. 

tttlb.  29.     Ancyra,  Can.  18.     Antioch,  Can.  17. 


CONCERNING  PRESBYTERS  AND  DEACONS.       265 

Bishops  accused  of  any  crime,  were  to  be  tried  at  a  Synod 
of  Bishops,*  of  which  two  were  held  annually .f  Though 
each  Bishop  in  the  primitive  Church  was  held  to  be  inde- 
pendent, the  right  of  his  brethren  to  call  them  to  account  for 
crimes,  or  heresy,  was  distinctly  asserted  in  the  second  cen- 
tury 4 

No  person  who  had  married  a  widow,  or  one  who  had  been 
a  mistress,  or  an  actress,  or  two  sisters,  or  his  niece,  could 
become  a  Bishop. §  Nor  any  one  who  had  been  guilty  of 
adultery,  fornication,  or  any  other  forbidden  act,  after  his  bap- 
tism ;||  or  who  had  made  an  eunuch  of  himself  ;1[  nor  insane 
persons,  nor  one  recently  converted,  nor  slaves,  without  the 
consent  of  their  masters.**  And  no  stranger  was  to  be  re- 
ceived to  the  communion  of  the  Church,  without  letters  of 
commendation. 11* 

Presbyters  and  Deacons. — All  that  has  been  said  of 
Bishops,  in  regard  to  qualification  and  character,  is  equally 
applicable  to  Presbyters  and  Deacons.  To  these,  the  follow- 
ing must  be  added.  They  were  not  permitted  to  baptize, 
without  the  Bishop's  consent  ;:|::j:  nor  Presbyters  to  admin- 
ister the  communion  without  the  same  consent. §^  They 
were  not  to  leave  their  parishes  without  the  Bishop's  con- 
sent, and  if  when  they  had  done  so,  they  refused  to  return 

*  Apos.  Can.  66.     3  Garth.  Can.  7. 

fib.  30.     Nice,  Can.  5.     Anlioch,  Can.  20. 

4:Cyp.  Ep.  67,68.     Dup.  Hist.  Ece.  Writ.  Cent.  iii.  p.  130. 

$  lb.  14, 1.5.     Elvira,  Can.  61,  62.    Neo-Ceas.  Can.  2.      Gangra,  Can.  4. 

II  lb.  53.     Tert.  De  Pudic.  c.  12.     Cyp.  Ep.  52. 

ir  lb.  17.     Nice,  Can.  1.     Alex.  A.  D.  235. 

♦*  lb.  70,  71,  72.  Elvira,  Can.  80.  Gangra,  Can.  2.  5  Carth.  Can. 
8,82. 

ttlb.  26.  Elvira,  Can.  25,  58.  Laod.  Can.  41,  42.  Antioch,  Can.  6. 
1  Carth.  Can.  7.     2  Carth.  Can.  7.     Sarag-ossa,  Can.  5. 

^Ign.  Ep.  Smyr.  c.  8.  Tert.  De  Bap.  c.  17.  §§I^.  Ep.  Smyr.  c.  8. 
23* 


266  PRIMITIVE  RULES  CONCERNING  LAYMEN. 

when  requested  by  their  Bishop,  were  to  be  deposed.*  And 
so  were  those  who  formed  a  separate  congregation,  without  the 
consent  of  the  Bishop.f  In  short,  they  were  not  permitted 
to  do  any  thing  relative  to  the  Church,  without  the  consent  of 
the  Bishop.:}: 

Laymen. — The  same  moral  character  was  required  of  lay- 
men, in  the  primitive  Church,  as  of  clergymen,  but  some  of 
the  regulations  in  regard  to  marriage,  did  not  include  them, 
and  some  acts  which  did  not  exclude  them  from  Church  com- 
munion, debarred  them  from  entering  the  ministry.  No  effort 
was  spared  which  would  enable  them  to  draw  a  broad  line  of 
distinction  between  Christians  and  the  Jewish  and  Gentile 
world.  Hence  the  rule  of  the  primitive  Church,  that  Christ- 
ians who  frequented  the  synagogues  of  the  Jews,  or  the  tem- 
ples of  the  heathens,^  or  who  celebrated  their  festivals  and 
fasts, II  were  to  be  excommunicated.  Christianity  could  at 
that  time  be  propagated  only  by  requiring  those  who  professed 
it,  to  come  out  and  be  separate  from  the  world,  and  they 
shrunk  from  no  privation,  and  from  no  duly  which  the  cause 
of  Christ  and  his  Church  demanded  at  their  hands.  Indeed, 
no  one  can  attentively  read  the  history  of  those  early  times, 
or  the  production  of  the  eminent  saints  whose  works  have 
survived  the  ravages  of  time,  without  being  thoroughly  con- 
vinced that  for  pureness  of  character,  for  rigidness  of  morality, 
for  heavenly  mindedness  and  holiness,  and  for  disinterested 
devotion  of  life,  the  Christians  of  the  first  and  second  centu- 
ries stand  pre-eminent  above  all  succeeding  times. 

Pasts. — Besides  the  things  we  have  already  mentioned, 
the  primitive  Christians  made  use  of  various  other  expedients 
to  quicken  their  devotion,  and  to  keep  alive  in  them  a  remem- 

*  Apos.  Can.  12.     Ant.  Can.  3.  Sardica,  Can.  20. 

fib.  24.  Ign.  Ep.  Mag.  c.  7.  Anlioch,  Can.  5.  Gangra,  Can.  5. 
Laod.  Can.  34.     2Carth.  Can.  8, 

;(Ib.  32.  Mb.  03.  (I  lb.  62. 


FASTS  OF  THE  PRIMITIVE   CHURCH.  267 

brance  of  their  duty.  Among  these,  fasting  and  voluntary- 
abstinence  held  a  prominent  place.  Fasts  were  of  two  kinds, 
weekly  and  annual. 

1.  Weekly  Fasts. — Fasting  was  common,  even  under  the 
former  dispensation,  and  was  adopted  by  the  Apostles  under 
the  Christian  dispensation,  (1  Cor.  vii.  5,)  though  the  Apostle 
would  have  it  done  voluntarily.*  The  days  made  choice  of 
for  this  purpose,  were  Wednesdays  and  Fridays,"}"  at  which 
time,  it  was  customary ''  to  lay  aside  the  expense  which  would 
have  been  made  on  other  days,  and  give  it  to  the  widow,  the 
fatherless,  and  the  poor. "J  Towards  the  close  of  the  second 
century,  fasts  were  prescribed  in  some  places  for  one  or  both  of 
these  days.^  It  was  also  customary  to  fast  preceding  bap- 
tism,||  and  on  other  important  occasions.^ 

2.  Annual  Fast. — The  only  fast  of  this  kind,  observed  in 
the  primitive  Church,  was  that  preceding  the  day  of  our  Lord's 
crucifixion,  now  called  Lent,  and  Passion  W^eek.  This  fast  has 
been  observed  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles.  The  Western 
Church,  from  the  earliest  ages,  observed  it  as  we  now  do,  on 
the  Friday  following  the  Paschal  full  moon,  but  the  Eastern 
Christians  observed  it  on  the  particular  day  of  the  moon  in 
which  our  Saviour  suffered,  without  any  reference  to  the  day 
of  the  week.  This  difference  of  practice  gave  rise  to  a  con- 
troversy on  the  subject,  as  early  as  A.  D.  150.  About  160, 
Polycarp,  Bishop  of  Smyrna,  visited  Rome,  and  held  a  con- 
ference on  the  subject,  with  Anicetus,  the  tenth  Bishop  of  that 
city.**    But  nothing  was  effected,  and  things  remained  as  they 


*Col.  2,  16,  IS,  23.  Chapiii  on  Study  of  Celtic.  Lang.  p.  13,  on  cthelo- 
threskeia. 

fComp.  Herm.  Sim.  iii.  c.  5,  and  Fabric.  Cod.  Vet.  Test.  iii.  p.  928. 
Clem.  Alex.  Strom,  vii.  p.  744.     Tert.  Dc  Jejune,  c.  14. 

X  Herm.  Sim.  iii.  c.  5.  §  Apos.  Can.  01. 

II  Just.  Mar.  Apol.  i.  c.  79.  IT  Tert.  De  Jejune,  cc.  13,  14. 

**  Iren.  Ep.  Victor,  in  Euseb.  v.  25. 


268  FESTIVALS   OF  THE   PRIMITIVE   CHURCH. 

were  before.  In  flie  days  of  Victor,  ilie  thirteenth  Bishop  of 
Rome,  several  councils  were  held  on  this  subject,  and  there 
is  extant  part  of  an  epistle  written  by  Polycratcs,  Bishop 
of  ]']phesus,in  which  he  appeals  to  the  practice  of  the  Apos- 
tle Jolin,  as  authority  for  their  usage. 

The  extent  of  this  was  various,  in  various  places.  Some 
fasted  hut  a  .sin<rlc  day,  ((!ood  Friday,)  others  two,  or  more, 
up  to  forty.* 

Festivals. — The  evidence  on  the  subject  of  the  festivals 
of  the  Church,  is  loss  full  than  on  that  of  /o.v^v,  but  is  still 
suflicient  to  enable  us  to  tell  what  the  principal  ones  were. 

1.  The  Rksurrectjon,  now  called  Ea.stcr  Svnday ;  that 
is,  the  day  of  the  resurrection.  Bcde  says :  "  80  called 
from  the  Goddess  Eostre^  whose  festivities  were  in  April, "(• 
But  we  conjecture^  that  it  is  from  the  same  root  as  Eaat^ 
which  denotes  rising;  hence  /?«*/,  "the  place  of  rising;" 
Easter,  "  the  resurrection."  This  festival  is  and  ever  has 
been  kept  by  all  who  observe  a  fast  in  commemoration  of  the 
Crucifixion,  and  is  acknowledged  by  all  to  have  been  uni- 
versal.| 

2.  Pentecost,  now  called  Whit-Sim-tidc,  or  Whitsunday. 
— This  day  seems  to  have  been  observed  as  a  festival  by  the 
Apostles  themselves.  Thus,  on  one  occasion,  St.  Paul 
"  hasted  if  it  were  possible  for  him  to  be  at  Jerusalem  the  day 
of  Pentecost."  (Acts  xx.  16.)  And  on  another  occasion, 
when  about  to  visit  the  Corinthians,  he  tells  them  that  he  shall 
"  tarry  at  J^])hesus  until  Pentecost."  (1  Cor.  xvi.  8.)  This 
festival  is  mentioned  by  T(^.rtullian,  A.  D.  180,<^  and  the  Apos- 
tolical (/anons,  A.  1).  200, ||  and  was  then  made  to  include  tho 


♦  Iren.  Ep.  ad  Victor,  in  Euseb.  v.  24. 

f  Bedc,  dc  Temp.  Rat.  Works,  ii.  81. 

^Bing.  XX.  5.     Mosh.  Ece.  II.  B.  I.  Cent.  I.  Par.  ii.  c.  4. 

§  l)e  Idol.  c.  M.     Du  l?ap.  c.  13.  ||  Can.  30. 


PKNTKCOHT,  ASCKNSfON,    I'lll';    NATfVrTV.  209 

wholo  fifty  days  from  Easier  to  Pentecost.     'J'lii«  |)eri()(l  was, 
oven  in  the  second  century,  one  of  the  set  times  for  baptism.* 

3.  AscKNsiON  Day. — 'i'hose  who  made  the  feast  of  Pen- 
tecost continue  for  fifty  days,  nec^es.sarily  observed  lliis  day 
also.  \n  the  fourth  century,  it  w.is  ke[)l  as  a  s(![)arate  festival, 
arui  St.  Austin  says,  that  it  was  so  ancient  in  his  day,  A.  1^. 
390,  that  its  oriirin  could  not  be  traced  ;  and  he  v(;ry  justly 
concludes,  that  those;  thin<^s  vvliich,  not  b(;in<^  (toMiiM;iri(h;d  in 
Scripture,  are  nev(;rtheless  recciived  throughout  tiic;  world,  as 
couiin<^  (h)wn  from  Aj)ostolic  times,  must  have  takim  tJuiir  riso 
in  the  days  of  tlie  Aposthis.f 

4.  'J'hio  Na  rivriv,  now  called  Chrisbnas. — The  direct  ev- 
idence of  the  observance  of  this  festival  in  the  first  century, 
is  l(!ss  than  that  of  many  others.  Still,  there  is  every  reason 
to  Ixdifive,  tliat  it  is  primitive,  if  not  Apostolic,  and  that,  with 
a  few  excej)ti()ns,  it  lias  always  been  observed  on  the  twenty- 
fifth  of  December. 

Chrysostom,  about  390,  says,  that  this  festival  was  "one 
of  great  anticpiity  and  long  continuance,  the  most  venerable 
and  tremendous  of  all  festivals,  being  famous  and  renowned 
in  the  Church /y-owi  the  bririnnifif^,  far  and  wide,  from  Thraco 
to  the  Gaddes,  in  Spain. "J 

Augustin,  about  .'{90,  S])eaks  of  "the  ancient  and  universal 
tradition  concerning  the  observance  of  this  festival  ;"<^  and 
Jerome,  twenty  years  before,  speaks  to  tlie  same  (dfect.H 
MosluMin  says,  and  others  coid'ess,  that  t/u;  hirlh-d(iys  of  Mar- 
tyrs were  cehjbrated  in  the  secoml  century ,11  arni  it  would  be 
extraordinary  tliat  th(;  priiiiilivc;  (yjirislians  should  c(!h.'brato 
the  births  of  Martyrs  to  our  religion,  and  yet  refuse  to  cole- 

♦  Ten.  De  JJap.  c.  l.'i.  f  An;?.  l':|).  J  IS,   Ad  Jiuniarimn. 

X  Iloin.  31,  Do  J}uj).  Ch.     Uitiff.  Atiti<i.  I^.  xx.  c.  1. 

$  De  Trin.  Ij.  iv.  v.  5. 

II  Oonj.  K/A'Ai.  c.  1.     IJifig.  Anli(|.  r>.  xx.  c.  4. 

H  luce,  liisl.  Cent.  2,  p.  lO.'},  1,  iw.t.-  r,. 


27d  FESTIVAL  OF  THE  NATIVITY. 

brate  the  birth  of  the  author  of  it.  For  some  years,  the 
Greek  Church  observed  the  Epiphany  and  Christmas  on  the 
same  day,  January  sixth,  but  Chrysostom,  about  390,  says, 
that  that  Church  then  began  to  celebrate  this  festival  on  the 
twenty-fifth  of  December.* 

It  has  been  objected,  that  this  festival  was  copied  from  a 
heathen  festival — the  Roman  Saturnalia.  But  by  reference  to 
ancient  authors,  the  only  source  of  information  on  such  sub- 
jects, we  shall  find  that  the  Saturnalia  was  at  first  celebrated 
on  the  seventeenth  of  December  only  ;  or,  as  some  say,  on  the 
sixteenth,  and  others  on  the  eighteenth  of  December.!  Other 
days  were  subsequently  added,  until  the  number  became  three, 
and  by  order  of  Caligula  were  extended  to  five.;};  Two  other 
days,  called  Sigilaria,  were  subsequently  added  :^  but  even 
then,  the  festival  ended  on  the  twenty-third  of  December, 
when  it  commenced  on  the  sixteenth. 

The  authority  for  this  assertion,  in  regard  to  the  festival  of 
Christmas,  we  take  to  be  Gibbon,  who  says  :  "  The  Romans, 
as  ignorant  as  their  brethren  of  the  real  date  of  the  birth  of 
Christ,  fixed  this  solemn  festival  to  the  twenty-fifth  of  Decem- 
ber, the  Brumalia,  or  winter  solstice,  when  the  Pagans  annu- 
ally celebrate  the  birth  of  the  Sun."|| 

But  we  have  a  word  to  say  concerning  this  opinion  of  Mr. 
Gibbon.  Bingham,  whom  he  professes  to  quote,  as  authority 
for  his  assertion,  that  Christmas  has  succeeded  to  the  Bruma- 


*  Orat.  31,  De  Nat.  Ch.     Bing.  Antiq.  Ch.  L.  xx.  c.  5. 

t  Liv.  L.  ii.  c.  21  ;  L.  xxii.  c.  1 ;  Lemp.  Clas.  Die.  by  Professor  Anthon, 
in  loco.  Adams'  Roman  Antiq.  in  loco;  Univ.  An.  Hist.  vol.  ii.  p.  311; 
B.  iii.  c.  2. 

X  Liv.  L.  lix.  c.  G.  Suet,  in  Vita  Claud,  c.  xvii.  Adams'  and  Lemp. 
ubi  sup. 

§  Menol.  Satur.  L.  i.  c.  x. 

II  Dec.  and  Fall  Rom.  Emp.  c.  xxii.  n.  22,  referring  to  Bing.  Antiq.  Ch. 
L.  XX.  c.  iv.,  and  Beans.  Hist.  Grit.  Man.  torn.  2,  pp.  GOO— 700. 


FESTIVAL  OF  THE  NATIVITY.  271 

lia,  by  no  means  supports  his  conclusion.  Bingham's  lan- 
guage is,  "  Some  say  that  the  design  of  appointing  the  feast  of 
Christ's  Nativity  and  the  Epijjhany  at  this  season  of  the 
year,  was  to  oppose  the  vanity  and  excess  of  the  heathen,  in 
the  Saturnalia  and  Kalends  of  January,  at  this  very  time  of 
the  year."  But  he  had  before  shown,  that  this  opinion  was 
without  foundation. 

Nor  does  Beausobre  say,  as  Gibbon  would  have  his  readers 
infer,  but  that  this  feast  was  instituted  to  oppose  the  heresy 
of  the  Manicheans,  who  denied  the  reality  of  the  birth  of 
Christ,  and  of  his  death  and  resurrection.  The  ManicheeSy 
therefore,  with  Cerdon,  and  the  Priscillianists,  who  disbelieved 
the  birth  of  the  Saviour,  refused  to  keep  a  festival  in  commem- 
oration of  an  event  which  they  said  had  never  occurred.* 

There  is,  however,  still  another  hypothesis  of  the  objector, 
concerning  the  origin  of  this  festival,  and  instead  of  deriving 
it  from  the  Roman  Saturnalia,  they  imagine  that  it  was  copied 
from  the  Yule  of  the  Northmen.  That  Christmas  was  bor- 
rowed from  the  Yule,  concerning  which|  "  much  has  been 
written  to  little  purpose,"  is  about  as  likely  as  that  the  observ- 
ance of  Sunday  was  borrowed  from  the  dies  solis  of  the  Ro- 
mans, the  Sunnan-daeg  of  the  Saxons,  or  Sonday  of  the  Teu- 
tones,  which  was  a  day  set  apart  among  the  Saxons  for  the 
worship  of  the  Sun. 

To  suppose  a  similarity  and  coincidence  between  the  so- 
lemnities of  a  Christmas  festival  and  the  unbridled  license, 
the  vicious  and  debauching  practices  of  a  Roman  Saturnalia, 
or  between  that  and  the  bloody  and  demoralizing  rites  of  the 
Gothic  Yule,|  requires  a  keenness  of  intellect,  which  enables 
men  to  see  a  perfect  resemblance  between  a  classic  Jove  and 

*  Comp.  Bing.  L.  xx.  c.  iv.  Beaus.  uhi  sup. 
tLond.  Quar.  No.  108,  p.  160,  Am.  Ed. 
^Wheaton'sHist.  Northm.  p.  125,  Phil.  1831. 


272  FESTIVA.L  OF  THE  EPIPHANY. 

a  brutal,  senseless,  bloody  Thor  ;  or  a  complete  sameness  be- 
tween a  Roman  Mercury  and  a  Scandinavian  Odin  :  blunders 
which  might  well  lead  us  to  suppose  that  either  the  writer  or 
reader  of  works  like  those,  must  be  ignorant  of  the  character 
ascribed  to  either  one  or  the  other.* 

How  then  stands,  not  the  fact,  but  the  probability  of  a  Sa- 
turnalian  origin  of  Christmas  ?  While  some  declare  with  all 
boldness,  that  such  an  original  is  beyond  all  doubt,  others  are 
not  less  sanguine  that  the  real,  identical  prototype  of  this  fes- 
tival is  to  be  found  in  the  Scandinavian  Yule  ;|  and  still  oth- 
ers suppose  that  this  festival  was  not  borrowed/rom  the  Sa- 
turnalia, but  instituted  to  oppose  it.  Again,  others  doubt  not 
that  it  was  established  to  break  down  the  heresy  of  the  Man- 
ichees  and  Priscillianists  ;  while  others  hesitate  not  to  say, 
that  it  has  existed  from  the  beginning,  and  that  historical 
traces  of  it  are  to  be  found  in  the  second  century. 

The  weight  of  evidence  appears  to  us  to  point  clearly  to  an 
early  origin  of  the  festival  of  the  nativity  of  Christ,  probably 
within  the  first,  at  any  rate  within  the  second  century ;  that  as 
soon  as  Christians  were  permitted  to  build  houses  of  worship,^ 
the  celebration  of  this  festival  became  notorious — occupied  a 
share  in  public  attention,  and  filled  a  larger  space  in  the  histo- 
ries of  the  day — that  the  errors  of  the  heretics  and  the  vices 
of  the  pagans  gave  it  still  more  celebrity.  It  was  celebrated, 
too,  as  we  now  celebrate  it,  by  the  same  or  similar  worship.^ 

5.  Epiphany,  or  the  manifestation  to  the  Gentiles. — All 
the  Churches   at  all  times  have  agreed   in   celebrating  the 

*  Blackwood  Mag.  No.  237,  p.  27,  Am.  Ed.  See  also  N.  F.  S.  Grund- 
trig,  "  Norden's  Myihologie,  eller  Sinbilled-sprog." 

t  Johnst.  alt.  Scand.  Antiq. 

X  At  first,  and  for  a  long  time,  Christians  were  obliged  to  meet  privately 
upon  the  sea-shore,  in  tombs  and  cemeteries.  (Pliny,  Ep.  L.  xvi.  Ep.  97, 
Euseb.  E.  H.  L.  vii.  c.  11,  L.  ix.  c.  12,  Sec.  Discip.  Ecc.  pp.  14—20,  Bing- 
ham, in  loco.) 

§  Apos.  Cons.  V.   13,  14,  viii.  33. 


COMMEMORATION  OF  SAINTS'   DAYS.  273 

Epiphany  or  Theophani  on  the  6th  of  January,  on  which  day, 
for  some  time  the  Greek  Church  also  kept  Christmas.  But  as 
early  as  390  the  Greek  Church,  in  consequence  of  the  facts 
brought  forward  in  proof  that  the  twenty-fifth  of  December 
was  the  real  day  of  Christ's  nativity,  acknowledged  her 
error  and  altered  her  practice.* 

Saints'  Days. —  Another  custom  of  the  primitive  Church,  was 
that  of  celebrating  the  anniversaries  of  the  martyrdom  of  em- 
inent Saints,  and  other  important  occurrences.  Thus  the 
martyrdom  of  Ignatius  was  celebrated  by  the  Church  of  An- 
tioch.|  And  the  martyrdom  of  Polycarp  was  celebrated  by 
the  Church  at  Smyrna.^  These  days  were  called  the  birth- 
days of  the  martyrs,  as  being  the  day  of  their  entrance  into 
the  world  of  bliss.  Thus  it  is  said  by  Tertullian  :§  "We 
make  anniversary  oblations  for  the  dead  on  their  birth-days." 
And  Cyprian  says  :||  "  We  always  offer  sacrifices  for  them  as 
often  as  we  celebrate  the  passions  and  days  of  the  martyrs  in 
our  anniversary  commemorations."  And  Peter  Chrysologus, 
in  his  Sermon  on  the  martyrdom  of  Cyprian,  addresses  his 
hearers  thus  :  "  When  ye  hear  of  a  hirth-day  of  Saints  do 
not  think  that  that  is  spoken  of  in  which  they  are  born  on 
earth  of  the  flesh,  but  that  in  which  they  are  born  from  earth 
into  heaven,  from  labor  to  rest,  from  temptation  to  repose, 
from  torments  to  delights,  not  fluctuating,  but  strong,  stable 
and  eternal,  from  the  derision  of  the  world  to  a  crown  of 
glory.  Such  are  the  hirth-day s  of  the  martyrs  that  we  cele- 
brate." 

Stated  hours  of  Prayer. — The  practice  of  observing 
stated  hours  of  prayer  is  probably  as  old  as  Christianity  itself. 

*Greg.  Naz.  Oral.  Nat.  Christ,  38;  Chrys.  Horn.  31,  de  Bap.  Ch.  Orig. 
Horn.  8.  de  dio ;  St.  Aug.  de  Tiin.  L.  iv.  c.  5  ;  St.  Basil  Serm.  Nat.  Ch.  ; 
Bing.  Antiq.  Church,  L.  xx.  c.  4. 

t  Martyr.  Ign.  c.  7.  4:  Martyr.  Pol.  c.  18. 

§De  Coron.  Mil.  c.  3.  I|  Ep.  39. 

24 


274  STATED  HOURS  OF  PRAYER. 

Thus,  "  Peter  and  John  went  up  to  the  temple  at  the  hour  of 
j9rayer,  being  the  ninth  hour."  (Acts  iii.  1.)  The  expression 
here  made  use  of  is  a  distinct  recognition  of  an  existing 
custom  observed  by  the  Apostles.  So  also  it  is  said  of  Cor- 
nelius, that  he  fasted,  and  "  at  the  ninth  hour  he  prayed.''''  (Acts 
X.  30.)  Hence  it  is  evident  that  the  ninth  hour  w^as  observed 
as  a  stated  time  of  prayer.  Again,  it  is  said,  that  "  Peter  went 
up  upon  the  house  top  to  pray  about  the  sixth  houry  (Acts  x. 
9.)  Whence  it  is  evident  that  the  sixth  hour  was  also  a  sta- 
ted time  of  prayer.  So  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  the  disciples 
"  were  all  with  one  accord  in  one  place,"  (Acts  ii.  1,)  and 
probably  in  the  temple,  "  at  the  third  hour  of  the  day,"  (Acts 
ii.  15.)  From  this  we  may  reasonably  infer,  that  this  also  was 
a  stated  hour  for  prayer.  And  again  it  is  said,  that  "  at  mid- 
night Paul  and  Silas  prayed."     (Acts  xvi.  25.) 

Here  then  we  have  a  distinct  statement,  that  prayers  were 
offered  at  certain  specified  times,  and  in  one  case  it  is  ex- 
pressly said  to  be  "  the  hour  of  prayer."  Consequently,  we 
may  infer  from  the  nature  of  the  evidence,  by  which  these 
questions  are  to  be  decided,  that  in  all  cases  where  the  precise 
time  of  offering  prayer  is  mentioned,  that  it  was  a  stated  time. 
This  conclusion  is  most  clearly  sustained  by  the  language  of 
Clement,  of  Rome,  for  he  tells  us*  that  we  ought  to  perform 
our  public  worship  of  God,  "at  the  appointed  seasons,  for 
this  he  hath  commanded  to  be  done,  not  rashly  and  disorderly, 
but  at  certain  determinate  times  and  hours^  And  we  learn 
from  Clement,  of  Alexandria,!  Tertullian,|  Origen,^  and  Cyp- 
rian,||  that  these  appointed  seasons  were  at  sunrise,  the  third, 
sixth,  and  ninth  hours  of  the  day,  and  at  sunset.  And  we 
know  that  these  hours  were  observed  by  all  the  Churches  in 
the  centuries  following. 

♦  Ep.  Cor.  c.  40.  t  Strom,  vii.  ^  De  Jejune,  c.  10. 

§  De.  Orat.  c.  12.  |!  De.  Oral.  Domin.  c.  22, 


WHITE  GARMENTS  EMBLEMS  OF  PURITY.  275 

Vestments. — The  whole  subject  of  vestments  in  the  prim- 
itive Church,  with  the  reasons  for  their  use,  may  be  classified 
under  the  following  heads,  from  which  it  will  be  seen,  that  the 
charge  often  made,  that  they  have  been  copied  from  heathen 
practices,  can  not  be  true. 

1.  White  garments  have  always  been  esteemed  as  emblems 
of  purity. 

2.  As  such  they  were  prescribed  for  the  Jewish  priests,  to 
be  worn  as  insignia  of  their  office,  and  from  the  Jews  copied 
into  other,  and  heathen  nations. 

3.  For  the  same  reason  they  were  used  by  the  primitive 
Christians  in  the  rite  of  baptism,  in  the  second  century. 

4.  And  for  the  same  reason  they  were  adopted  by  the 
priesthood  in  the  Christian  Church,  before  the  commencement 
of  the  third  century. 

1.  White  garments  have  always  been  esteemed  as  emblems 
of  purity. 

We  learn  from  the  inspired  Apostle,  that  the  seven  angels, 
commissioned  from  heaven  to  inflict  the  last  plagues  upon 
man,  were  to  appear  "  clothed  in  pure  and  white  linen,''  (Rev. 
XV.  6,)  that  all  "  the  armies  in  heaven  are  clothed  in  Jine 
linen,  white  and  clean."  (Rev.  xix.  14.)  The  saints,  too, 
"  those  who  had  not  defiled  their  garments,"  (Rev.  iii.  4.) 
"  those  who  had  been  slain  for  the  word  of  God,"  (vi.  9,) 
"  with  the  four  and  twenty  elders  that  surrounded  the  throne 
of  the  Most  High,"  (iv.  4,)  and  the  "  mighty  multitude,  which 
no  man  can  number,  from  all  nations,  kindred,  people,  and 
tongues,  who  had  in  much  tribulation  washed  their  robes  in 
the  blood  of  the  Lamb,"  (vii.  9,  14,)  were  dressed  in  "white 
raiment,  having  white  robes  upon  them."  So,  too,  the  bride 
and  spouse  of  the  Lamb,  when  decked  in  her  bridal  garments, 
was  "  to  be  arrayed  in  fine  linen,  clean  and  white,  for  the 
white  linen  is  [emblematic  of]  the  righteousness  of  the 
Saints."     (Rev.  xix.  8.)     The  same  may  be  proved  by  nu- 


276  WHITE  GARMENTS  EMBLEMS  OF  PURITY, 

merous  passages  in  the  Old  Testament.*  And  the  heathen 
nations  used  garments  of  the  same  color,  with  the  same  de- 
sign.! 

2.  White  garments  were  prescribed  for  the  Jewish  priests, 
and  from  them  copied  by  the  heathen  nations.  We  find  the 
use  of  the  linen  ephod  prescribed  for  the  Jewish  priests  by 
Moses  himself,  to  be  worn  when  they  ministered  at  the  altar4 
and  which  we  know  from  the  meaning  of  the  original  term 
was  white.  The  use  of  white  garments  has,  therefore,  been 
practised  ever  since  the  establishment  of  the  Jewish  Theoc- 
racy, about  1650  years  before  the  Christian  era.  Now  unless 
the  Pagans  can  show  the  use  of  similar  garments,  nearly  or 
quite  as  early,  the  presumption  will  be,  that  they  copied  them 
from  the  Jews  ;  and  since  the  former  are  unable  to  prove  their 
use  of  them  within  a  thousand  years  as  early  as  we  know  they 
were  used  by  the  latter,  this  presumption  amounts  to  a  proba- 
bility, almost  to  a  certainty.  To  this  it  may  be  added,  that 
though  the  Pagan  priests  sometimes  wore  white  garments,  it 
was  not  the  only,  if  their  usual  color.^ 

Besides,  the  Priesthood  among  many  ancient  nations  seem 
not  to  have  had  any  peculiar  garments,  as  insignia  of  their 
office!     Among  the  Romans,  whose  Priests  were  not  a  class 

*Comp.  Ps.  li.  7;  Isa.  i.  IS;  Ezek.  xvi.  9—13;  xliv.  16,  17;  Lev. 
xix.  19  ;  Deul.  xxii.,  xi. 

t  Arcee.  Gi-aBc.  Robinson,  v.  3,  p.  419,  Svo.  Lond.  1S27  ;  Poller's  Gr. 
Antiq.  iv.  c.  3.     Plul.  Quaes.  Rom.    Univ.  Hist.  vol.  xi.  p.  239. 

4:  Robinson's  Calmenl,  in  loco.  Josepbus'  Antiq.  Jud.  iii.  7.  Judges  viii. 
27;  xvii.  5  ;  xviii.  14.     1  Sara.  ii.  18;  xxviii.  14,  15;  xxiii.  6,  &c. 

§  The  authorities  commonly  cited  to  prove  the  use  of  the  white  garment 
among  the  ancient  Pagan  Priests,  are  Plato  de  Lege.  L.  xii.  Cicero  de  Lege. 
L.  ii.  and  Virg.  ^n.  xii. ;  but  Anarcharsis,  the  Younger,  in  his  Grecian 
travels,  says  :  "  The  Priests  officiated  in  rich  vestments,  having  upon  them 
the  names  of  their  particular  Deities  to  which  the  temple  was  consecrated, 
in  leUers  of  gold."  (Vol.  II.  p.  415.)  These  garments  point  to  the  mag- 
nificent ephod  of  the  Jewish  High  Priest,  (Exod.  xxviii.  and  xxix.)  as  the 
original  from  whence  they  were  derived. 


AND  HENCE  USED  IN  BAPTISM, 


277 


of  men  distinct  from  the  rest  of  the  people,*  every  man  wore 
a  clean  white  toga  on  the  occasion  of  any  festival.f 

3.  That  for  a  similar  reason,  white  garments  were  used  by 
the  primitive  Christians,  in  the  rite  of  baptism.  Among  many 
ancient  nations,  persons  who  died  were  first  washed,  then 
anointed  and  clothed  in  white  garments,  as  emblematic  of  the 
purity  required  of  those  who  were  about  to  enter  into  another 
world.J  The  renovation  of  Israel  is  described  by  the  Prophet 
under  the  similitude  of  a  wretched  infant,  who  was  taken  in 
its  distresses,  "  washed  in  water,  anointed  in  oil,  and  decked 
in  fine  white  linen."  (Ezek.  xvi.  9—13.)  So  in  the  primi- 
tive Church,  those  who,  being  buried  to  the  world  in  baptism, 
died  unto  sin,  and  rose  to  life  in  Christ,  "  were  washed  in 
the  laver  of  regeneration,"  anointed  with  oil,  and  clothed  with 
white  garments,  in  token  that  they  had  renounced  "  the  devil 
and  all  his  works,  the  vain  pomp  and  glory  of  the  world,  with 
all  covetous  desires  of  the  same,  and  the  sinful  ^desires  of 
the  flesh  ;  that  hereafter  they  should  not  be  ashamed  to  con- 
fess the  faith  of  Christ  crucified,  and  manfully  to  fight  under 
his  banner  against  sin,  the  world,  and  the  devil ;  and  to  con- 
tinue Christ's  faithful  soldier  and  servant  unto  their  life's 
end."^ 

*  Gibbon  Dec.  and  Fall  Rom.  Emp.  vol.  I.  c.  xv.  p.  280 ;  c.  xx.  p.  426. 

f  Ovid  Fans.  5,  v.  7.  Adams'  Rom.  Antiq.  p.  348.  And  further,  the 
state  of  Paganism  in  the  eighth  century  will  hardly  admit  the  supposition 
that  Christians  borrowed  any  thing  from  it  at  that  period.  On  the  state 
of  Paganism  at  that  time,  Mosheira  and  Gibbon  will  furnish  very  good  au- 
thorities, and  Fontenelle  (History  of  Oracles,  part  2)  has  given  a  good  ac- 
count of  its  decay  previous  to  the  sixth  century. 

4:  Rob.  Archael.  Graecae.  b.  v.  e.  3,  p.  410.  Potter's  Grecian  Antiq.  iv. 
3 ;  Adams'  Rom.  Antiq.  p.  398.  Virg.  ^n.  vi.  219.  Plin.  Epis.  L.  v.  Ep. 
16.  Ovid  Her.  x.  122.  Jahn,  Bib.  Arch.  p.  T.  c.  13,  sect.  204.  Univ. 
An.  Hist.  vol.  I.  p.  490. 

§  TertuUian,  in  his  treatise  on  baptism,  speaks  of  the  "  unctione  de  pris- 
tina  disciplina,"  (c.  7,  p.  226,  Par.  1675,)  of  the  "  obsignatio  baptismi,  ves- 
24* 


278  WHITE  GARMENTS  USED 

4.  White  garments  were  used  as  priestly  vestments  in  the 
Christian  Church,  before  the  commencement  of  the  third 
century.  The  Apostolic  Constitutions  make  mention  of  the 
"  splendidae  vestem,"  that  is,  the  bright,  clear,  or  pure  gar- 
ments, so  called  from  their  white  color,  worn  by  the  Priests 
when  ministering  at  the  altar.*  Eusebius  notices  the  "  sa- 
cred gown  and  sacerdotal  garments  worn  by  the  Bishops  and 
Priests."!  So  also  he  speaks  of  the  petalon,\  which  Profes- 
sor Cruse  renders,  "  sacerdotal  plate,"  but  which  seems  rather 
to  denote  some  kind  of  garment  worn  as  a  badge,  and  proba- 
bly made  of  linen.  Jerome,  also,  speaks  of  the  white  gar- 
ment worn  by  the  Bishop  and  Priest  at  the  communion. § 
And  Gregory  Nazianzen  alludes  to  the  use  of  similar  gar- 
ments. ||  Pontius,  in  his  account  of  the  martyrdom  of  St. 
Cyprian,  prefixed  to  the  works  of  that  Bishop,  calls  "  white 
linen  an  ensign  of  Episcopal  honor  ;"T[  and  Baronius**  says 
St.  Cyprian  went  to  his  martyrdom  in  his  "  pontifical  habit ;" 
and  Bede  makes  mention  of  Episcopal  garments  worn  in  his 
time. It 

The  argument  for  the  use  of  vestments,  therefore,  stands 
thus  :  White  garments  have  been  considered  by  ail  nations  as 
emblematic  of  purity,  and  are  by  inspiration  spoken  of  as  em- 
blems of  the  righteousness  of  the  saints.     Their  use  by  the 

limentum  quodammodo  fidei."  (C.  13,  p.  229.)  See  also  Apos.  Cons. 
iii.  15,  16, 17,  22,  p.  368  ;  Recog.  Clem.  iii.  67  ;  Cyril  Hieros.Cat.  Mystag.  2. 
Chrys.  Orat.  6,  sub  finen;  Ep.  ad  Coloss.  Dionys.  2;  Aug.  Serm.  de  illitu 
Neophy.  and  Serm.  de  Mys.  Bap.  Ambrose  de  Sacra,  i.  2. 

*  B.  V.  iii.  12.  t  Euseb.  Hist.  x.  4.  %  B.  v.  24. 

§  Adv.  Pelag.  i.  9,  Tom.  2d,  p.  565. 

II  Orat.  31,  Tom.  1,  p.  504. 

ir  Op.  Cyp.  Pont.  Diac.  Vita.  S.  Cyp.  p.  9,  Ox.  1682. 

**  Annals  Ann.  261,  sec.  40,  41. 

ttDe  Fab.  cited  by  What.  B.  c.  p.  104.  The  4  Council  of  Carthage, 
A.  D.  398,  in  canon  41,  directed  the  Priest  to  wear  the  burflice  at  the 
communion. 


AS  A  PRIESTLY  VESTMENT.  279 

Jewish  Priests  was  commanded  by  God  himself,  was  copied 
from  the  Jews  by  the  Pagans,  adopted  in  the  Christian  Church 
hefore  the  year  200,  and  has  been  continued  by  most  Christian 
nations  until  the  present  time. 

Celibacy. — The  early  Church  relying  on  the  language 
of  St.  Paul  to  the  Corinthians,  (1  Cor.  vii.  1 — 11,)  very  soon 
came  to  place  a  high  estimate  upon  the  practice  of  virginity. 
Thus  Ignatius,  A.  D.  107,  says  :  "  If  any  one  be  able  to  re- 
main in  chastity,  to  the  honor  of  the  Lord  of  all  flesh,  let  him 
do  so  without  boasting.  If  he  boast  he  is  undone.  If  he  de- 
sire to  be  esteemed  above  his  Bishop,  he  is  corrupt."*  So 
Justin  Martyr,  A.  D.  150,  writes:  "Many,  both  men  and 
women,  of  the  age  of  sixty  or  seventy  years,  who  have  been 
disciples  of  Christ  from  their  youth,  continue  in  immaculate 
virginity."!  Towards  the  close  of  the  second  century,  the 
ardent  but  unstable  TertuUian,  though  himself  a  married  man, 
was  loud  in  his  praises  of  virginity,  in  which  he  was  followed, 
to  a  considerable  extent,  by  Cyprian. 

But  virgins  had  not  yet  been  formed  into  separate  communi- 
ties, even  in  the  third  century,  as  appears  from  Cyprian's 
Treatises.;]:  And  it  was  one  ground  of  complaint  with  him, 
that  they  sought  to  attract  attention  by  their  dress, §>  attended 
marriage  parties, ||  public  exhibitions,^  as  other  women,  there- 
by endangering  themselves,  and  becoming  snares  to  others. 
Nor  was  the  vow  of  virginity  then  considered  binding,  for 
even  Cyprian  says  of  the  virgins,  "  if  they  cannot,  or  will  not 
remain  virgins,  let  them  marry."** 

Nor  was  celibacy  at  this  period  required  even  in  the  clergy. 
Eusebius,  A.  D.  325,  collected  and  published  what  he  could 
find  relative  to  the  marriage  of  the   Apostles,  and  he  tells  us. 


*  Ep.  Pol.  c.  5.  t-A-pol.  i.  c.  18.  |De  Habitu  Virginum. 

§Cc.  5, 7.  yc.  10.  irc.il. 

**  Ep.  Pomp.  4,  or  62. 


280  CELIBACY SUCCESSION  OF  BISHOPS. 

on  the  authority  of  Clement,  of  Alexandria,  that  Peter  and 
Paul  were  married,  that  Philip  was  married,  had  children,  and 
gave  his  daughters  in  marriage.*  This  is  also  corroborated 
by  Polycrates,  Bishop  of  Ephesus,  A.  D.  195,  who  adds,  that 
two  of  the  daughters  of  Philip  were  never  married.f  So  he 
tells  us  that  Domus,  the  sixteenth  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  was 
son  of  Demetrianus,  the  fourteenth  Bishop  of  that  city4  In- 
deed, the  evidence  is  abundant,  that  for  ages  after  celibacy 
was  recommended,  it  was  not  required. 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 

SUCCESSION  OF  BISHOPS. 

Having  seen  that  in  every  Church  there  was  one  Apostle, 
or  Apostolic  Bishop,  who  alone  possessed  the  power  of  ordi- 
nation, and  having  seen  that  this  arrangement  was  designed 
to  be  permanent,  it  follows  necessarily,  that  there  ought  to  be 
an  uninterrupted  succession  of  such  Bishops.  It  is  important, 
therefore,  for  us  to  inquire  whether  there  is  sufficient  proof 
that  such  a  succession  has  been  kept  up,  and  if  so,  where  it 
is  to  be  found,  and  what  is  the  evidence  of  its  existence. 
This  will  require  us  to  dwell  a  moment  upon  the  early  prac- 
tices of  the  Church  in  this  particular. 

The  first  Apostolical  Canon,  which  is  acknowledged  by  all 
historians  to  describe  the  "  customs  of  the  Church  in  the  East, 
in  the  second  and  third  centuries,"^  directs  that  "  a  Bishop 
should  always  be  ordained  by  two  or  three  Bishops."||     And 


*  Hist.  iii.  30.  f  Ep.  Pol.  in  Euseb.  v.  24. 

t  Circ.  Ep.  Coun.  Anlioch,  in  Euseb.  vii.  30. 

§  Mosh.  B.  I.  cent.  Par.  ii.  c.  2,  and  Dr.  Murdock's  note. 

fl  SS.  Patr.  Apos.  II.  -137. 


BISHOPS  ORDAINED  BY  THREE  BISHOPS.  281 

it  was  further  ordained  at  the  council  of  Aries,  314,  that  at 
the  ordination  of  a  Bishop,  there  should  never  be  less  than 
three  Bishops,  and  that  seven  should  be  present,  if  they  could 
be  procured.*  And  the  council  of  Nice,  the  first  general 
council,  all  the  Bishops  of  the  Roman  empire  having  been 
summoned,  decreed,  A.  D.  325,  that  the  ordination  of  Bishops 
should  be  done  by  all  the  Bishops  of  the  Province,  if  they 
could  be  convened,  but  that  no  ordination  should  be  performed 
by  less  than  three  Bishops. "f  This  canon  has  ever  since 
been  regarded  as  the  law  of  the  Church,  so  that  a  consecra- 
tion, or  ordination  of  a  Bishop  by  a  less  number  than  three 
Bishops,  though  it  might  be  valid,  would  be  uncanonical  and 
irregular,  if  not  schismatical. 

If,  now,  we  turn  over  the  pages  of  the  historian,  we  shall 
find  the  practice  of  the  Church  has  been  in  accordance  with 
these  principles.  References  to  a  few  cases  are  given  as  ex- 
amples. Thus  when  Narcissus,  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  had 
retired  from  his  office,  about  A.  D.  199,  "  the  Bishops  of  the 
neighboring  Churches  proceeded  to  ordain  Dius,  Bishop  of 
that  city.":j:  So  also,  after  the  restoration  and  death  of  Nar- 
cissus, Bishop  of  the  same  city,  Alexander,  Bishop  of  Cap- 
padocia,  was  translated  to  Jerusalem,  237,  "  with  the  common 
consent  of  the  Bishops  of  that  neighborhood."^  Cornelius, - 
the  twentieth  Bishop  of  Rome,  was  consecrated  A.  D.  250,  by 
sixteen  Bishops  then  at  Rome,  two  of  which  were  from  Africa. || 
So  when  the  heretic  Novatian  desired  to  be  ordained  Bishop, 
252,  he  sent "  fictitious  pleas  to  three  Bishops,"  and  under  false 
pretences  procured  consecration.^     St.   Cyprian,  Bishop  of 

*  Can.  20.  fCan.  4. 

:J:  Euseb.  vi.  c.  10.  §  Euseb.  vi.  c.  10. 

II  Walsh.  Lives  Popes,  p.  35.     Dup.  Ecc.  Writ.  Cent.  iii.  p.  118.     Cyp. 
Ep.  ad  Anton.  55. 

IT  Ep.  Corn.  Bp.  Rom.  in  Euseb.  v.  c.  43. 


282        ORDINATIONS  PERFORMED  AT  A  SYNOD. 

Carthage,  "  was  ordained  by  a  great  number  of  Bishops."* 
And  furthermore,  he  tells  us,  that  in  compliance  with  "  divine 
tradition  and  Apostolical  usage,"  "  the  custom  was  estab- 
lished, and  ought  to  be  diligently  maintained,"  that  "  for  the 
due  celebration  of  ordinations  the  Bishops  of  all  the  ad- 
joining provinces  should  be  convened."!  About  256,  Basil- 
ides  and  Martialis,  Bishops  of  Leon  and  Astorga,  in  Spain, 
were  deposed  by  a  council  of  Bishops^  and  Felix  and  Sabinus 
consecrated  in  their  stead.J  In  the  year  269,  Paul  of  Samo- 
sata.  Bishop  of  Antioch,  was  deposed  by  a  council  held  at 
Antioch,  and  Domnus,  the  son  of  Demetrianus,  the  predeces- 
sor of  Paul,  was  consecrated  in  his  room.^  Among  the 
Bishops  present  were  Firmilian,  of  Cesarea,  Gregory,  of 
Neo-Cesarea,  Athenodorus,  of  Pontus,  Helenus,  of  Tarsus, 
Nicomas,  of  Iconium,  Hymenus,  of  Jerusalem,  Maximus,  of 
Bostra,  and  others. 1|  These,  and  many  other  facts  that  might 
be  quoted,  leave  no  manner  of  doubt  that  the  practice  of  the 
Church  in  the  primitive  ages,  in  regard  to  the  consecration  of 
Bishops,  was  in  strict  accordance  with  its  principles. 

To  prevent  all  mistakes,  and  all  schismatical  ordinations, 
consecrations  were  ^fiwercf//?/  performed  at  a  Synod  of  Bishops, 
of  which  two  were  held  annually  in  the  primitive  Church.H 
The  continuance  of  this  practice  was  enjoined  by  a  council 
of  Eastern  Bishops,  held  at  Antioch,  341,**  and  by  the  Bishops 
of  England,  at  the  council  of  Hereford,  673. ft  At  these  the 
Bishop  of  the  principal  city,  or  the  one  oldest  in  office,  called 
Patriarch,  Metropolitan,  or  Primate,  presided,  and  was  gener- 
ally the  consecrating  Bishop.|:|:  The  number  of  such  Sees  in  the 

*Dup.  Ecc.  Writ.  Cent,  iii.  p.  117. 

t  Ep.  78.  I  Cyp.  Ep.  67.  §  Euseb.  vii.  cc.  27,  30. 

II  Euseb.  vii.  c.  28.  IT  Apos.  Can.  30. 

♦*  Can.  19,  20.  tt  Can.  7. 

:{::}:  Coun.  Nice,  Can.  0.  Antioch,  Can.  9.  Laodicea,  Can.  12.  2  Aries, 
Can.  .5,  6,  etc. 


RECORD  OF  ORDINATIONS  PRESERVED.         283 

third  and  fourth  centuries,  mentioned  by  historians,  were  four  ; 
Rome,  Alexandria,  and  Antioch,  for  their  size,  and  being  civil 
Metropoles  ;  and  Jerusalem  for  its  antiquity  and  honor. 

There  is,  however,  still  another  important  question  :  allow- 
ing that  there  has  been  this  care  in  regard  to  the  succession, 
has  the  record  of  it  been  preserved  1  And  is  there  proof, 
now  existing,  worthy  of  confidence,  sufficient  to  establish  it  ? 
On  this  point  there  can  be  no  doubt.  Thus  Irenaeus,  the 
disciple  of  Polycarp,  who  was  the  disciple  of  St.  John,  as  we 
have  already  seen,  assures  us,  that  in  his  day,  A.  D.  175, 
"  they  could  enumerate  those  appointed  Bishops  by  the  Apos- 
tles and  their  successors,  even  to  his  day."*  And  Tertullian, 
about  200,  says,  that  all  orthodox  Churches  in  his  day,  "  could 
show  the  series  of  their  Bishops,  so  running  down  from  the 
beginning  by  successions  from  the  first  Bishop,  as  to  be  able" 
to  show  that  he  "  was  one  of  the  Apostles,  or  Apostolic  men."t 
And  both  writers  appeal  to  this  fact,  as  evidence  that  they 
were  in  possession  of  the  truth.  The  great  ecclesiastical 
historian  of  the  primitive  Church,  Eusebius  Pamphilius, 
Bishop  of  Cesarea,  gives  the  "  successions  of  the  Apostles," 
as  he  found  them  recorded  in  the  archives  of  the  Churches.  J 
We  give  the  successions  of  the  four  Patriarchal  Sees  ;  of 
Rome,  Alexandria,  Jerusalem,  and  Antioch,  as  given  by  Eu- 
sebius, who  copied  them  from  the  records  of  the  Church  and 
authors  extant  in  his  time.<^  The  list  comes  down  to  305, 
when  his  history  closes. 


*  Adv.  Hser.  iii.  c.  3.  t  Pfaes-  Adv.  Hser.  c.  32. 

:j:Hist.  B.  iii.  c.  3.     Int.  B.  viii. 

§  Very  many  of  these  records,  though  now  lost,  were  preserved  in  his 
day,  in  the  library  at  Jerusalem,  founded  by  Alexander,  Bishop  of  that 
city,  about  A.  D.  2.50,  to  which  Eusebius  had  access,  and  from  which  he. 
drew  many  of  his  materials  for  his  history.  (B.  v.  20.  See  also  i.  1, 
Intd.  ii.  iii.  3,  4. 


284 


BISHOPS    OF  THE  FOUR  PATRIARCHAL  SEES. 


Rome. 

Alexandria. 

Jerttsalem. 

Antioch. 

1. 

Linus, 

Anianus, 

James, 

Evodius, 

2. 

Cletus, 

Avilius, 

Simon, 

Ignatius, 

3. 

Clement, 

Cerdon, 

Justus, 

Heros, 

4. 

Evaristus, 

Primus, 

Zacheus, 

Cornelius, 

5. 

Alexander, 

Justus, 

Tobias, 

Eros, 

6. 

Sixtus, 

Eumenes, 

Benjamin, 

Theophilus, 

7. 

Telesphorus 

,  Marcus, 

John, 

Maximus, 

8. 

Hyginus, 

Celadin, 

Matthew, 

Serapion, 

9. 

Pius, 

Agrippinus, 

Philip, 

Asclepiades, 

10. 

Anicetus, 

Julius, 

Seneca, 

Philetus, 

11. 

Soter, 

Demetrius, 

Justus, 

Zebinus, 

12. 

Eleutherus, 

Heraclas, 

Levi, 

Babylus, 

13. 

Victor, 

Dionysius, 

Ephrem, 

Fabius, 

14. 

Zephrynus, 

Maximus, 

Joseph, 

Demetrianus, 

15. 

Calixtus, 

Theonus, 

Judas, 

Paul, 

16. 

Urban, 

Peter, 

Marcus, 

Domnus, 

17. 

Pontianus, 

A.  D.  302. 

Cassianus, 

Timaeus, 

18. 

Anteros, 

Publius, 

Cyrillus, 

19. 

Fabian, 

Maximus, 

Tyr  annus, 

20. 

Cornelius, 

Julian, 

A.  D.  302. 

21. 

Lucius, 

Caius, 

22. 

Stephen, 

Symmachus 

> 

23. 

Sixtus, 

Caius, 

24. 

Dionysius, 

Julian, 

25. 

Felix, 

Maximus, 

26. 

Eutychianus 

t. 

Antonius, 

27. 

Caius, 

Capito, 

28. 

Marcellinus, 

» 

Valens, 

29. 

A.  D. 296. 

Dolchianus, 

30. 

Narcissus, 

31. 

Dius, 

32. 

Germanio, 

33. 

Gordius, 

SUCCESSION  OF  THE  CHURCH  IN  ENGLAND.  285 

Rome.  Alexandria.        Jerusalem.  Antioch. 

[Narcissus,] 

34.  Alexander, 

35.  Mazabanas, 

36.  Hymenaeus, 

37.  Zambdas, 

38.  Hermon, 

A.  D.  300. 

This  brings  us  down  within  twenty  years  of  the  great 
Council  of  Nice,  and  is  sufficient  to  demonstrate,  that  both 
the  succession  and  the  record  of  it  were  carefully  preserved, 
and  that  both  were  undoubted  at  the  time  of  the  Council  of 
Nice,  A.  D.  325.  The  lists  of  these  Bishops  are  also  given 
by  several  other  early  writers,  of  different  countries,  so  as  to 
render  the  facts  indisputable.  We  shall  consider,  in  the  next 
chapter,  the  nature  of  the  Apostolic  Succession,  and  the  fact 
of  its  continuance  to  the  present  day. 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 

SUCCESSION  OF  THE   CHURCH  IN  ENGLAND. 

We  propose  in  this  chapter,  to  consider  two  points  con- 
nected with  the  succession  of  Bishops  in  the  English  Church, 
which  are  often  confounded.  Bishops  are  said  to  succeed 
each  other,  when  they  follow  in  the  same  See,  or  Diocese, 
Consequently,  the  succession  of  Bishops  in  a  particular  Dio- 
cese, is  the  list  of  Bishops  who  have  governed  that  Diocese, 
and  may  be  called  a  succession  of  Episcopal  jurisdiction,  or 
government.  But  it  is  a  very  different  thing  from  the  ApoS' 
folic  succession,  on  which  all  Episcopal  power  depends.  The 
difference  may  be  briefly  explained  thus  :  When  one  Bishop 
25 


286  DIFFERENCE  BETWEEN  EPISCOPAL  GOVERNMENT 

ordains  another  Bishop,  he  commits  to  the  person  ordained,' 
the  same  Episcopal  powers  which  he  himself  possesses. 
Every  Bishop,  therefore,  receives  his  authority  to  minister  as 
a  Bishop  in  the  Church  of  Christ,  at  the  time  of  his  ordina- 
tion, or  consecration ;  and  he  receives  it  through  him  who 
ordained,  or  consecrated.  Hence,  if  we  wish  to  trace  back 
the  authority  of  the  present  Bishops,  we  must  go,  not  in  the 
line  of  Bishops  occupying  a  particular  See,  but  in  the  line  of 
their  consecrators.  The  one  we  shall  call  the  Succession  of 
Episcopal  Governors ;  the  otlier,  the  Apostolic  Succession. 
Our  meaning  may  be  explained  by  an  example.  All  the  col- 
onies were  originally  attached  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop 
of  London,  and  hence  each  of  the  Dioceses  in  this  country, 
where  there  was  an  Episcopal  Church  before  the  Revolution, 
would  trace  the  succession  of  Episcopal  Governors  back  to 
the  Bishops  of  London.  But  the  Apostolic  succession  is 
traced  back  through  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury,  the  first 
Bishops  of  this  country  having  been  consecrated  by  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury.  Or  we  may  trace  it  through  the  Arch- 
bishops of  York,  as  the  Archbishop  of  York  assisted  at  the 
consecration  of  our  first  Bishops. 

But  we  may  also  trace  our  Apostolic  succession  back  to  the 
Church  of  Scotland ;  for  one  lawful  Bishop  is  sufiicient  to 
confer  the  Apostolic   succession  ;*  and  as  there  are  at  least 


♦  Doubts  have  been  raised  by  some  Theologians,  whether  ordinations 
by  one  Bishop  are  valid ;  but,  as  seems  to  us,  without  sufficient  reason. 
They  would  be  uncanonical,  and  therefore  irregular,  but  still  valid.  So 
held  Beveridge,  Mason,  Hallier,  Paludanus,  Sylvester,  and  others.  (Pal. 
Church,  P.  vi.  c.  5.)  Others  have  held  the  contrary  opinion  ;  -but  this  has 
been  practised  by  the  Romish  Bishops  in  Ireland,  Scotland,  and  America. 
Even  Archbishop  Caroll,  the  fountain  of  Romish  Orders  in  this  country, 
was  ordained  by  only  one  Bishop,  and  that  one  a  mere  titular  Bishop. 
(Pal.  Church,  P.  vi.  c.  11.)  And  Bishop  Chcvereux  was  ordained  by 
Archbishop  Caroll  alone. 


AND  THE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION.  287 

three  Bishops  ordinarily  engaged  in  the  consecration  of  a 
Bishop,  we  may  trace  the  Apostolic  succession  through  any 
of  the  ordaining  Bishops.  Now  Bishop  Seabury  was  con- 
secrated by  Robert  Kilgour,  Arthur  Petrie,  and  John  Skinner, 
Scottish  Bishops,  November  14,  1784.  From  him  we  have 
received  the  Apostolic  succession,  thus  : 

Samuel  Seabury  assisted  in  the  consecration  of  Thomas 
John  Claggett,  September  17,  1792. 

Thomas  John  Claggett  assisted  in  the  consecration  of  Ed- 
ward Bass,  May  7,  1797. 

Edward  Bass  assisted  in  the  consecration  of  Abraham 
Jarvis,  October  18,  1797. 

Abraham  Jarvis  assisted  in  the  consecration  of  John  Henry 
Hobart  and  Alexander  Viets  Griswold,  May  29,  1811. 

John  Henry  Hobart  and  Alexander  Viets  Griswold  assisted 
in  the  consecration  of  Thomas  Church  Brownell,  October  27, 
1819. 

The  Succession  of  Episcopal  Governors  in  Connecticut,  is, 
therefore, — 

Bishops  of  London,  till  1784. 

Samuel  Seabury,  1784—1796. 

Vacancy  a  year  and  a  half. 

Abraham  Jarvis,  1797—1813. 

Vacancy  six  and  a  half  years. 

Thomas  Church  Brownell,         1819 —     — 

During  a  part  of  the  six  and  a  half  years'  vacancy,  this 
Diocese  was  under  the  provisional  supervision  of  Bishop  Ho- 
bart, of  New  York. 

The  Apostolic  Succession  is, — 

1.  Samuel  Seabury.  4.  Abraham  Jarvis. 

2.  Thomas  John  Claggett.         5.  John  Henry  Hobart. 

3.  Edward  Bass.  6.  Thomas  Church  Brownell. 
There  are  now  living  in  the  United  States,  twenty  Bishops 


388  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION 

of  the  Episcopal  Church.     They  trace  their  succession  to  the 
Archbishops  of  Canterbury  and  York,  as  follows  : 
To  BISHOP  WHITE, 

Who  was  consecrated  by  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury 
and  York,  Feb.  4,  1787— 

Rt.  Rev.  Alexander  Viets  Griswold,  of  Massachusetts,  May 
29,  1811. 

Rt.  Rev.  Philander  Chase,  Illinois,  Feb.  11,  1819. 

Rt.  Rev.  Thomas  Church  Brownell,  Connecticut,  Oct.  29, 
1819. 

Rt.  Rev.  Henry  Ustick  Onderdonk,  Pennsylvania,  Oct.  25, 
1827. 

Rt.  Rev.  William  Meade,  Virginia,  Aug.  19,  1829. 

Rt.  Rev.  Benjamin  Tredwell  Onderdonk,  New  York,  Nov. 
26,  1830. 

Rt.  Rev.  Levi  Silliman  Ives,  North  CaroHna,  Sept.  22, 1831. 

Rt.  Rev.  John  Henry  Hopkins,  Vermont,  Oct.  31,  1832. 

Rt.  Rev.  Benjamin  Bos  worth  Smith,  Kentucky,  Oct.  31, 
1832. 

Rt.  Rev.  Charles  Petit  Mcllvaine,  Ohio,  Oct.  31,  1832. 

Rt.  Rev.  George  Washington  Doanc,  New  Jersey,  Oct.  31, 
1832. 

Rt.  Rev.  James  Henry  Otey,  Tennessee,  Jan.  14,  1834. 

Rt.  Rev.  Jackson  Kemper,  Missouri,  Sept.  25,  1835. 

To  BISHOP  GRISWOLD, 
Who  stands  in  the  preceding  list — 
Rt.  Rev.  William  Heathcote  Delancy,  Western  New  York, 
May  9,  1839. 

Rt.  Rev.  Christopher  Edwards  Gadsden,  South  Carolina, 
June  21,  1840. 

Rt.  Rev.  William  Rollinson  Whittingham,  Maryland,  Sept. 
17,  1840. 

Rt.  Rev.  Alfred  Lee,  Delaware,  Oct.  12,  1841. 


OF  THE  AMERICAN  CHURCH.  289 

To  BISHOP  H.  U.  ONDERDONK, 

Who  also  stands  in  the  same  list — 

Rt.  Rev.  Samuel  Allen  McCoskry,  Michigan,  July  7, 1836. 

To  BISHOP  MEADE, 
Who  also  stands  in  the  same  list — 

Rt.  Rev.  Leonidas  Polk,  Arkansas,  Dec.  9,  1838. 

Rt.  Rev.  Stephen  Elliott,  Georgia,  Feb.  28,  1841. 

Now  as  we  have  shown  before,  how  Bishop  Griswold  tra- 
ces his  succession  to  Scotland,  it  follows,  that  all  those  whom 
he  has  consecrated,  or  has  assisted  in  consecrating,  can  trace 
their  succession  to  Scotland  also.  Those  who  trace  it  in  this 
way,  are — 

Bp.  Brownell,  Bp.  Meade,  Bp.  Hopkins, 

"    Mcllvaine,  "     Delancey,         "     Gadsden, 

"    Whittingham,      "     Lee. 

We  have  also  seen  how  Bishop  Hobart  traced  his  succes- 
sion to  Scotland.     Those  who  trace  it  through  him,  are, — 

Bishop  Chase,  Bishop  H.  U.  Onderdonk. 

Those  who  trace  it  through  Bishop  Hobart  and  Bishop  H. 
U.  Onderdonk,  are, — 

Bp.  B.  T.  Onderdonk,     Bp.  Smith,  Bp.  Kemper, 

"    Ives,  "    Otey,  "    McCoskry. 

The  other  Bishops  trace  their  succession  to  Scotland,  thus  : 

Bishop  Doane,  through  Bishops  B.  T.  Onderdonk,  H.  U. 
Onderdonk,  Hobart,  and  then  as  before. 

Bishops  Polk  and  Elliott,  through  Bishops  Smith,  H.  U. 
Onderdonk,  and  then  as  before. 

Again ;  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury  and  York  were 
assisted  in  the  consecration  of  Bishops  White  and  Provoost, 
by  the  Bishops  of  Peterborough,  and  of  Bath  and  Wells. 
Consequently,  if  either  of  these  four  Bishops  had  received  a 
valid  consecration,  the  consecration  of  Bishops  White  and 
Provoost  must  also  be  valid.  Now  as  every  Bishop  now  liv- 
25* 


290  IMPROBABILITY  OF  ANY  BREAK 

ing,  or  that  ever  has  lived  in  this  country,  can  trace  their  suc- 
cession to  all  these  Bishops,  all  may  trace  their  succession 
through  which  line  they  please. 

Again ;  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  was  assisted  in  the 
consecration  of  Bishop  Madison,  by  the  Bishops  of  London 
and  Rochester.  Now  since  all  the  Bishops  now  living,  or 
that  ever  have  lived  in  this  country,  can  trace  their  succession, 
through  Bishop  Madison,  to  either  of  these  Bishops,  it  fol- 
lows, that  if  either  of  these  had  received  a  valid  consecration, 
our  Bishops  have  been  validly  consecrated.  We  see,  there- 
fore, that  if  either  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury  or  York,  or 
the  Bishops  of  London,  or  of  Bath  and  Wells,  or  of  Peter- 
borough, or  of  Rochester,  or  of  Ross  and  Murray,  or  of  Ab- 
erdeen, had  had  a  valid  consecration,  our  Bishops  have  all 
been  validly  consecrated,  and  the  succession  has  been  pre- 
served unbroken. 

We  have  detailed  these  facts  more  at  large  than  we  should 
have  done,  had  we  not  designed  to  have  used  them  to  illustrate 
an  important  point  in  this  inquiry,  which  seems  not  to  be  well 
understood.  We  know,  that  from  the  second  century  to  the 
present  time,  it  has  been  required,  when  they  could  be  pro- 
cured, at  least  three  Bishops  in  the  consecration  of  another 
Bishop.  Now,  if  it  should  ever  happen,  that  either  one,  or 
even  two,  of  the  three  ordaining  Bishops,  should  prove  not  to 
be  lawful  Bishops,  the  one  remaining  lawful  Bishop  would  be 
sufficient  to  transmit  the  Episcopal  authority.  We  see,  there- 
fore, if  Bishops  White,  Provoost,  and  Madison,  who  were 
consecrated  by  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  had  never  been 
consecrated  at  all,  but  had  assumed  to  themselves  the  Episco- 
pal office,  without  any  authority,  still  all  the  Bishops  in  our 
Church  would  now  be  lawful  Bishops,  as  all  can  trace  their 
succession  to  Bishop  Seabury.  And  yet  Bishop  Seabury 
never  assisted  in  the  consecration  of  but  a  single  Bishop ! 
And  what  may  seem  more  singular  still,  is,  that  there  never 


IN   THE  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  291 

has  been  a  Bishop  consecrated  in  the  Episcopal  Church  in 
this  country,  that  could  not  trace  his  succession  to  Bishop 
Seabury.  This  will  enable  the  reader  to  see  that  the  evi- 
dence in  favor  of  the  Apostolic  succession,  is  of  that  high  de- 
gree of  prohahility,  not  to  say  certainty,  that  the  supposition 
of  a  break  in  it  is  one  of  the  most  improbable  ideas  that  could 
ever  enter  one's  head,  and  that  it  is  next  to  impossible  that  it 
should  ever  occur.  It  will  be  seen  from  this,  also,  that  there 
may  have  been  ever  so  many  vacancies  in  the  line  of  Episco- 
pal Governors,  without  affecting  in  the  least  the  Apostolic 
succession.  A  particular  See  may  often  have  been  vacant, 
and  remained  vacant  for  a  great  number  of  years.  During 
this  interval,  all  acts  peculiarly  pertaining  to  the  Apostolic 
office,  must  be  performed  by  the  Bishop  of  some  other  See. 
This  is  so  obvious  to  one  at  all  acquainted  with  tbe  subject, 
that  it  would  seem  unnecessary  to  mention  it,  if  such  vacan- 
cies had  not  been  spoken  of  by  the  opponents  of  Episcopacy, 
as  breaking  the  line  of  succession.  But  men,  wise  in  other 
matters,  are  not  aware  of  the  fallacy,  because  they  confound 
Episcopal  government  with  Apostolic  succession.  We  shall 
give  the  English  succession  in  several  different  ways. 

I.  SUCCESSION  FROM  EPHESUS. 

The  Archbishops  of  Canterbury,  through  whom  the  suc- 
cession of  the  English  Bishops  is  usually  traced,  received  their 
succession,  not  as  is  often  said,  from  Rome,  but  from  Aries, 
Augustine,  the  first  Saxon  Bishop,  as  well  as  the  first  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  having  been  consecrated  at  Aries,  by 
Virgilius,  the  tv/enty-fourth  Archbishop  of  Aries,  ^Etherius, 
the  thirty-first  Bishop  of  Lyons,  and  probably  other  Bishops 
of  that  province.*     The  reason  why  Augustine  was  consecra- 

*Bede,  Hi$t.  i.  27.  Gallia  Christiana,  vol.  I.,  pp.  519—510.  Vol.  IV. 
pp.  4—40.     Dupin,  Hist.  Ecc.  "VVritr.  vol.  V.  p.  90. 


292  ENGLISH  EPISCOPATE  DERIVED. 

ted  at  Aries,  was,  that  from  the  time  of  the  Emperor  Hono- 
rius,  Aries  had  been  ranked  as  the  metropolitan  city  of  Gall,* 
though  at  a  still  earlier  period,  as  appears  from  the  ancient  No- 
titia,  it  was  reckoned  as  belonging  to  the  Arch-Diocese  of 
Venice,!  while  at  a  still  earlier  period  the  whole  province  was 
reckoned  as  the  Arch-Diocese  of  Lyons,  a  name  it  still  retains.^ 
The  succession,  therefore,  very  properly  comes  through  the 
two  lines  of  Lyons,  (that  city  having  been  first  converted  to 
Christianity,)  and  Aries,  and  very  providentially  the  Bishops 
of  both  Dioceses  assisted  in  the  consecration  of  Augustine. 

The  source  from  whence  the  Gallic  Churches  derived 
their  Episcopate  and  ecclesiastical  rites,  has  been  somewhat 
disputed,  but  without  any  sufficient  reason.  The  ancients 
themselves  traced  it  back  to  St.  John.^  Pothinus,  the  first 
Bishop  of  Lyons,  was  a  Greek,  1|  and  died  at  the  advanced  age 
oi  ninety,  A.  D.  176.11  Pothinus,  therefore,  was  fourteen  years 
old  when  St.  John  died,  and  eighty  years  when  Polycarp 
died.**  Irenaeus,  the  successor  of  Pothinus,  was  also  a  Greek, 
and  was  the  disciple  of  Polycarp,tt  Polycarp  himself  having 
been  ordained  Bishop  of  Smyrna,  by  St.  John.JJ  And  the  as- 
sociates with  Irenaeus,  in  the  ministerial  office,  were  also 
Greeks. §§  So  too,  when  they  were  suffering  under  a  most 
violent  persecution,  they  wrote  a  circular  epistle  to  the  Church- 
es, which  was  addressed  :  "  The  servants  of  Christ  dwell- 
ing at  Lyons  and  Vienna,  in  Gaul,  to  the  brethren  in  Asia 
and    Phrygia."l|ll     Now  Ephesus  was  the  residence   of  St. 


*  Gall.  Chris.  I.  2.     Bede,  i.  27.  f  Gall.  Chris.  I.  1. 

:j:Eijifeb.  v.  cc.  1,23. 

§  Gallia  Christ.  I.  5—12.     Spel.  Coun.  i.  17G.     Bede,  v.  2^ 

II  Greg.  Tour.  i.  28,  29.  IT  Euseb.  v.  1. 

**  Ep.  Church,  Smyr.  Mart.  Pol. 

ft  Iren.  Adv.  Haer.  iii.  3.     Ep.  Flor.  Euseb.  v.  23,  24. 

:f4:Iren.  Adv.  Heer.  iii.  3.  §§  Ruin.  Acta.  Martyr.  80. 

nil  Euseb.  V.  1. 


FROM  EPHESUS  AND  ST.  JOHN.  293 

John,  after  his  return  from  Patmos  until  his  death.*  After 
the  death  of  this  disciple,  Polycarp  exercised  a  kind  of  su- 
pervision over  the  vacant  Churches,  as  we  read  was  the  case 
in  Philippijf  Antioch,J  and  probably  elsewhere.  So  also, 
the  Churches  of  Gaul  received  their  ecclesiastical  rites,  and 
even  the  technical  phraseology  of  their  ecclesiastical  customs, 
from  Asia.§  An  ancient  Irish  historian  of  the  sixth  or  seventh 
century,  says,  that  "  the  Galilean  course  (i.  e.  Liturgy)  was 
first  chanted  by  St,  John,  the  Evangelist,  then  by  the  blessed 
Polycarp,  the  disciple  of  St.  John,  then  by  Irenaeus,  Bishop 
of  Lyons,  in  Gaul."||  In  the  famous  controversy  between 
Wilfrid,  Archbishop  of  York,  and  Coleman,  Bishop  of  Dur- 
ham, the  latter  appealed  to  the  universally  received  opinion, 
that  they  derived  their  ecclesiastical  usages  from  St.  John.^ 
One  of  these  customs  related  to  keeping  Easter,  in  which  the 
Church  of  Gaul  differed  from  Rome,  even  in  the  second  cen- 
tury,** but  corresponded  with  that  of  the  Asiatic  Churches.'ft 
That  the  Galilean  Liturgy  was  derived  from  the  Ephesian,  or 
that  of  St.  John,  has  been  satisfactorily  shown.JJ  So  also 
much  of  their  ecclesiastical  language  was  copied  from  the 
Greek,  as  we  have  already  seen  was  the  case  in  regard  to  the 
word  Church. ^^  We  also  know  that  the  old  Gothic  version 
of  the  Bible,  was  made  by  a  Gothic  Bishop,  Ulfilas,  from  the 
Greek, II II  and  from  a  manuscript  of  Eastern  origin. ^*^  These 
facts  leave  no  doubt  that  the  Gallic  Churches  received  their 
Episcopate,  along  with  their  ecclesiastical  customs  and  usages, 


*  Ep.  Polycr.  Bp.  Ephesus,  Euseb.  iii.  23,  v.  24. 

t  Ep.  Pol.  cc.  3,  13.  i  Ign.  Ep.  Pol.  cc.  7,  8.  §  Ante.  p.  232. 

II  Spel.  Coun.  i.  176.  IT  Bede,  iii.  25.  **  Euseb.  v.  23. 

tt  Euseb.  V.  23,24.  |:J:Pal.  Orig.  Liturgy,  i.   pp.    143—189,  and 

Ante.  pp.  lin,  117. 

§  §  Ante.  pp.  9,  IIG,  121.  |||j  Rug.  Inld.  N.  T.  Par.  i.  §  139. 

^IT  lb.  §  140. 


294  BISHOPS  OF  LYONS  AND  ARLES, 

from  Asia,  in  accordance  with  the  testimony  of  ancient  histo- 
rians. 

But  here  we  are  not  able  to  consult  the  original  records, 
being  kept  in  a  different  portion  of  country,  and  these  at  pres- 
ent are  imperfect,  many  of  the  early  records  of  the  Churches 
having  been  destroyed  when  the  South  of  Europe  was  over- 
run by  the  Northern  barbarians.  Since  the  fourth  century, 
however,  we  are  able  to  give  the  dates  of  the  several  suc- 
cessions, and  enough  has  been  preserved  to  give  us  the  exact 
order  of  the  succession  up  to  the  most  primitive  times.  We 
copy  from  the  great  work  of  the  Benedictines,  entitled  Gallia 
^Christiana,  in  eleven  folio  volumes,  and  which  was  above 
thirty-five  years  going  through  the  press.  The  year  standing 
against  the  names,  is  either  the  time  of  accession  or  the  pe- 
riod that  individual  is  known  from  history  to  have  flourished. 


St.  JOHN. 

1, 

PoLYCARP,  Bp.  of  Smyrna 
Bishops  of  Lyons* 

• 

2, 

(1,)  Pothinus,  177, 

3, 

(2,)  Iren^us,  177—202, 

4, 

(3,)  Zacharias, 

Bishops  of  Arles.j- 

5, 

(4,)  Elias, 

(1,)  Trophimus, 

6, 

(5,)  Faustinus, 

(2,)  Regulus, 

7, 

(6,)  Verus, 

(3,)  Martin  I.,  254, 

8, 

(7,)  Julius, 

(4,)  Victor,  266, 

0, 

(8,)  Ptolomy, 

(5,)  Marinus,  313, 

10, 

(9,)  Vocius, 

(6,)  Martin  II. 

11, 

(10,)  Maximus, 

(7,)  Valentine,  346, 

12, 

(11,)  Tetradus, 

(8,)  Saturnius,  353, 

13, 

(12,)  Verissimus, 

(9,)  Artemius, 

14, 

(13,)  Justus,  374, 

(10,)  Concerdius,  374, 

»  Gall.  Chris,  vol.  I.  pp.  519— 5 10.  f  Gall.  Chris,  vol.  IV.  pp.  5—40. 


THE  SOURCE  OF  ENGLISH  ORDERS. 


295 


Bishops  of  Lyons. 

Bishops  of  Arks. 

15, 

(14,)  Albinus, 

(11,)  Heros, 

16, 

(15,)  Martin, 

(J  2,)  Patroclus,  412, 

17, 

(16,)  Antiochus, 

(13,)  Honoratus,  426, 

18, 

(17,)  Elpidiiis, 

(14,)  Hilary,  433, 

19, 

(18,)  Sicarius, 

(15,)  Ravenus,  449, 

20, 

(19,)  Eiicherius  I.,  427, 

(16,)  Augustalis,  455, 

21, 

(20,)  Patiens,451, 

(17,)  Leontius,  462, 

22, 

(21,)  Liipicinus, 

(18,)  iEonius,  492, 

23, 

(22,)  RusticLis,  494, 

(19,)  Caeserius,  506, 

24, 

(23,)  Stephanus,  499, 

(20,)  Ananius,  543, 

25, 

(24,)  Viventiolus,  515, 

(21,)  Aurelian,  546, 

26, 

(25,)  Eucherius  II.,  524, 

(22,)  Sapandus,  557, 

27, 

(26,)  Lupus,  538, 

(23,)  Licerius,  586, 

28, 

(27,)  Licontius,  542, 

(24,)  ViRGiLius,  588. 

29, 

(28,)  Sacerdos,  549, 

30, 

(29,)  Nicetus,552, 

31, 

(30,)  Priscus,  573, 

32, 

(31,)  iExHERius,  589. 

Archbishops  of  Canterbury. 
The  principal  authorities  on  this  point  are  the  following : 
Bede's  Ecclesiastical  History  of  the  Angli,  by  Smith,  folio, 
Canterbury,  1722,  which  comes  down  to  A.  D.  735,  when  the 
author  died,  aged  62  ;  the  Saxoii  Chronicle,  which  was  writ- 
ten from  time  to  time  by  various  authors,  from  about  A.  D. 
450  to  1154  ;  the  History  of  the  Angli,  by  Matthew  Paris, 
from  A.  D.  1067  to  1259,  when  the  author  died,  and  a  con- 
tinuation of  the  same  to  1273,  by  William  Rishanger,  folio, 
London,  1640;  the  Chronicle  of  Lichf  eld,  by  unknown  au- 
thors, continued  down  to  1500,  printed  in  Wharton's  Angli 
Sacra,  with  many  other  ancient  documents,  2  vol.  fol.  1691  ; 
William  of  Malmsbury,  De  Gestis  Regum  Anglorum,  and  De 
Gestis  Pontificatum  Anglorum,  fol.,  London,  1596  ;  Roger  Ho- 
vedon  An/iflZiwrn,  fol.  London,  1596;  Henrici  Huntindoniensis 


296  ARCHBISHOPS  OF  CANTERBURY. 

Historiam,  fol.,  London,  1596  ;  all  being  compared  with  the  au- 
thorities in  Richardson's  edition  of  Godwin's  Prasulibus  An- 
gli(B,  folio,  Canterbury,  1743  ;  and  from  A.  D.  1375,  down  to 
the  present  time,  the  Records  of  Consecrations,  made  by  the 
Archbishops  of  Canterbury.  Reference  is  given  to  the  au- 
thorities, to  enable  him  who  chooses  to  examine  for  himself. 

33,  (1,)  Augustine,  consecrated  by  Virgilius,  twenty-fourth 
596.  Bishop  of  Aries,  assisted  by  ^Etherius,  thirty-first 

Bishop  of  Lyons,  A.  D.  596.* 

34,  (2,)  Lawrence,  consecrated  by  Augustine  to  be  his  suc- 
605.  cessor,  605. t 

35,  (3,)  Mellitus,  consecrated  Bishop  of  London  by  Augus- 
619.  tine,  604,  translated  to  Canterbury,  619.J: 

36,  (4,)  Justus,  consecrated  Bishop  of  Rochester  by  Au- 
624.  gustine,  604,  translated  to  Canterbury,  624. § 

37,  (5,)  Honorius,  consecrated  Archbishop  by  Paulinus, 
634.  Archbishop   of  York,   634  ;   Paulinus  having  been 

consecrated  by  Justus,  625. ||  Vacancy,  eighteen 
months. *![ 

38,  (6,)  Adeodatus,  or  Deusdedit,  consecrated  Archbishop  by 
654.  Ithamar,  Bishop  of  Rochester,  March  26,  654  ;  Ith- 

amar  himself  having  been  consecrated  by  Honorius, 
644.**  Vacancy,  three  years,  eight  months,  and  fif- 
teen days,  during  which  time  Wilfrid,  of  York, 
exercised  a  provisional  supervision.!! 

*  Bede,  i.  27,  28.     Hen.  Hunt.  Hist.  iii.  184.     Gal.  Chris.  I.  p.  540,  IV. 
p.  35. 

tBd.  ii.  4.    Sax.  Chron.  26.     Hen.  Hunt.  Hist.  iii.  187. 

ifBd.  ii.  3,  7.     Sax.  Chr.  24,  26.     Hen.  Hunt.  iii.  187. 

§  Bd.  ii.  3,  8.     Sax.  Chr.  24.     Hen.  Hunt.  iii.  187. 

II  Bd.  ii.  9,  16.     Sax.  Chr.  27,  28.     Hen.  Hunt.  iii.  189. 

IT  God.  Prais.  Aug.  p.  40. 

**  Bd.  iii.  14,  20.     Sax.  Chr.  33.     Wm.  Malms.  Ep.  Rof.  132. 

tfBd.  iv.  2.     Can.  Lich.     Dup.  Ecc.  Scrip.  Cent.  viii. 


ARCHBISHOPS  OF  CANTERBURY.  297 

39,  (7.)    Theodore,  of  Tarsus,  in  Cilicia,  consecrated  Arch- 
668.  bishop  by  Vitalian,  seventy-sixth  Bishop  of  Rome, 

March  26,  668.* 

40,  (8,)    Birthwald,    consecrated    Archbishop    by   Godwyn, 
693,  Metropolitan  of  Wales,  [WalUarum,)  or,  as  others 

say,  of  Gall,  (Galliarum,)  June  29,  693.| 

41,  (9,)  Tatwine,  consecrated  by  Daniel,  Bishop  of  Win- 
731,  Chester,  Ingauld,  Bishop  of  London,  Aldwin,  Bish- 
op of  Lichfield  and  Coventry,  and  Aldwulf,  Bishop 
of  Rochester,  June  10,  731 ;  Daniel  having  been  con- 
secrated, 705,  Ingauld,  715,  Aldwin,  721,  and  Ald- 
wulf, 727,  by  Birthwald.:|: 

42,  (10,)  Nothelm,  consecrated  by  three   Bishops,  as  would 
735.  seem,  at  a  national  Synod,  735.^ 

43,  (11,)  Cuthbert,  consecrated   by  Nothelm  to  the   See  of 
742.  Hereford,  736,  translated  to  Canterbury,  742. || 

44,  (12,)  Bregwin,  consecrated  at  the  feast  of  St.  Michael, 
759.  Sept.  29,  759.1 

45,  (13,)  Lambert,  or,  as  other  manuscripts  read,  Jambert,  or 
763.  Anbriht,  consecrated  by  Paul,  ninety-fourth   Bish- 
op of  Rome,  763.** 

46,  (14,)  iEthelred  I.,  consecrated    Bishop  of  Winchester, 
793.  780,  translated  to  Canterbury,  July  21,  793.-|"f 

47,  (15,)  Wulfred,  consecrated  by  Leo  III.,  ninety-seventh 
803.  Bishop  of  Rome,  803.JJ 

*Bd.  iv.  1.     Sax.  Chr.  40.     Malms.  De  Pont.  111. 
tBd.  v.  1.     Sax.  Chr.  47.     Malms,  de  Pont.  112. 

jBd.  V.  18,  23.     Sax.Ghr.  Sa,  52,  53.     Ghron.  Mailross.     Hen.  Hunl> 
iv.  194.     Malms.  De  Pont.  112,  132, 136. 
§Sax.  Chr.  54.     Hoved.  Ann.  i.  230. 

fl  Sax.  Chr.  55.     Malms,  de  Pont.  112.     Hoved.  Ann.  i.  231. 
ir  Sax.  Chr.  59.     Mahns.  de  Pont.  113. 

**  Sax.  Chr.  60.     Hoved.  Ann.  i.  232.     Abbrev.  Chron.  444. 
ft  Sax.  Chr.  65.     Malms,  de  Pont.  113. 
.^Sax.  Chr.  69.     Hen,  Hunt.  iv.  197.     God.  Prses.  Ang.  47> 
26 


298  ARCHBISHOPS  OF  CANTERBURY. 

48,  (16,)  Theogild,  or  Feogild,   elected  May  7,  consecrated 
830.  June  5,  died  Sept.  3,  830.* 

49,  (17,)  Ceolnoth,  consecrated  Archbishop,  Sept.  SSO.f 

50,  (18,)  iEthelred  II.,  consecrated  Bishop  of  Winchester, 
871.  862,  translated  to  Canterbury,  871. J 

51,  (19,  Phlegmund,  "  chosen  of  God,  and  by  all  his  holy 
891.  people.  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,"  consecrated  by 

Formosus,  one  hundred  and  twelfth  Bishop  of  Rome, 
891.<^ 

52,  (20,)  Athelm,  or  Adelm,  consecrated  Bishop  of  Wells,  by 
923.  Phlegmund,  assisted  by  six  Bishops,  905,  translated 

to  Canterbury,  923. H 

53,  (21,)  Wulfelm,  consecrated  Bishop  of  Wells,  923,trans- 
928.  lated  to  Canterbury,  928.1 

54,  (22,)  Odo  Severus,  consecrated  Bishop  of  Wilton,  920, 
941.  translated  to  Canterbury,  941.** 

55,  (23,)  Dunstan,  consecrated  by  Odo  to  the  See  of  Wor- 
959.  cester,  957,  translated  to  London,  958,  and  thence 

to  Canterbury,  959.tt 

56,  (24,)  jEthalgar,  consecrated  Bishop  of  Seolsy,  now  Chi- 

988.  Chester,  May  6,  980,  translated  to  Canterbury,  988.|t 

57,  (25,)  Siricus,    consecrated    Bishop   of    Wiltshire,    986, 

989.  translated  to  Canterbury,  989.^§ 

*  Sax.  Chr.  72. 

tSax.  Chr.  72.     Hen.  Hunt.  iv.  197.     Hoved.  Ann.  i.  236. 

:j:  Sax.  Chr.  80.     Hov.  Ann.  i.  233. 

§  Sax.  Chr.  90.     Hoved.  Ann.  i.  241.     God.  PrSBs.  Ang.  48. 

II  Wilk.  Con.  Ang.  I.  200.     God.  Praes.  Ang.  49. 

ir  Sax.  Chr.  111.     Malms,  de  Pont.  113.     God.  Praes.  Ang.  364. 

**  Mahns.  de  Pont.  114.     God.  Prses.  Ang.  50,  335.     Patr.  Brit.  75. 

tt  Sax.  Chr.  117.  Hov.  Ann.  i.  244.  Malms,  de  Pont.  114.  Ann.Wi- 
gorn.  MSS.  Cleop.     Ling.  Hist.  A.  S.  Church,  239. 

44  Sax.  Chr.  126.  Hov.  Ann.  i.  245.  Malms,  de  Pont.  115.  Hen. 
Hunt.  V.  205.     God.  Prais.  Ang.  501. 

§§  Sax.  Chr.  126.  Malms.de  Pont.  115.  Hen.  Hunt.  v.  205.  God. 
Praes.  Ang.  335. 


ARCHBISHOPS  OF  CANTERBURY.  299 

58,  (26,)  Aluricus,  or  Alfricus,  consecrated  Bishop  of  Wilt- 
996.  shire,  990,  translated  to  Canterbury,  996.* 

59,  (27,)  Elphege,  consecrated  Bishop  of  Winchester,  Nov. 
1005.         14,  983,  translated  to  Canterbury,  1005.t 

60,  (28,)  Living,  or  Leoning  Elskan,  consecrated  Bishop  of 
1013.         Wells,  about  1001,  translated  to  Canterbury,  1013.:{: 

61,  (29,)  Agelnoth,  or  iEthelnot,  consecrated  by  Wulstan, 
1020.         Archbishop  of  York,  1020.§ 

62,  (30,)  Edsin,    Edsius,    or  Elsin,  consecrated  Bishop  of 
1038.         Winchester,  1015,  translated  to  Canterbury,  1038.|| 

63,  (31,)  Robert  Gemeticensis,  or  Robert  Norman,  consecra- 
1050.        ted  Bishop  of  London,  1044,  translated  to  Canter- 
bury, 1050.1 

64,  (32,)  Stigand,  consecrated  Bishop  of  Helmsham,  1040, 
1052.        translated  to  Winchester,  1045,  and  to  Canterbury, 

1052.** 

65,  (33,)   Lanfranc,  consecrated  at  Canterbury,  "  all  the  Bish- 
1070.         ops  being  present,  by  themselves  or  proctors,"  the 

consecration  being  by  William,  of  London ;  Si- 
ward,  of  Rochester ;  Walkelin,  of  Winchester ; 
Herfast,  of  Norwich  ;    Walter,   of  Hereford  ;  and 


*  Sax.  Chr.  128.  Hoved.  Ann.  i.  246.  Hen.  Hunt.  v.  20.5.  God.  Praes 
Aug.  .50. 

tSax.  Chr.  125,  134.     Hoved.  Ann.  i.  240.     Malms,  de  Pont.  116. 

tSax.  Chr.  142.  Hoved.  Ann.  i.  248.  Hen.  Hunt.  v.  207.  MSS. 
Laud,  in  God.  Prses.  Ang.  365. 

§  Sax.  Chr.  152.     Hoved.  Ann.  250.     Hen.  Hunt.  vi.  208. 

II  Sax.  Chr.  155.  Hoved.  Ann.  i.  251.  Hen.  Hunt.  vi.  209.  God.  Prajs. 
Ang.  212. 

IT  Sax.  Chr.  161.  Malms,  de  Pont.  116.  Hoved.  Ann.  i.  252.  Hen. 
Hunt.  vi.  209.     God.  Praes.  Ang.  174. 

**  Sax.  Chr.  157, 158, 168.  Malms,  de  Pont.  116.  Hen.  Hunt.  vi.  209. 
Hoved.  Ann.  i.  255.     Mat.  Par.  7. 


300  ARCHBISHOPS  OF  CANTERBURY. 

Giso,  of  Bath  and  Wells,  August  29,  1070.*  Va- 
cancy four  years. I 

66,  (34,)  Anselm,  consecrated  by   Thomas,   Archbishop  of 
1093.        York,  and  Walkelin,  Bishop  of  Winchester,  all  the 

Bishops  of  England  having  been  convened,  August 
10,  1093.t 

67,  (35,)  Rodulph,  or  Ralph,  consecrated  Bishop  of  Roch- 
1114.         ester,  1 1 08,  translated  to  Canterbury,  1 1 1 4.§ 

68,  (36,)  William  Corbell,  nominated  by  the  King,  February 
1122.         2,  1122,  consecrated  by  William,  Bishop  of  Win- 
chester,   March    19,    1122;  William    having  been 
consecrated    by    Anselm,    1107.||       Vacancy    two 
years.^ 

69,  (37,)  Theobald,  elected  by  the  Bishops  of  the  province 
1138.         of  Canterbury,    consecrated  by  Albert,   Bishop    of 

Hostia,  at  a  Synod  of  English  Bishops,  1138.** 

70,  (38,)  Thomas  a  Becket,  elected  by   the   clergy,   June  2, 
1162.  1162,  ordained  a  Presbyter  by  Walter,  Bishop  of 

Rochester,  and  the  next  day  being  Trinity  Sunday, 
consecrated  Archbishop  by  Henry  Blesis,  Bishop  of 
Winchester. ft 


*Sax.  Chr.  175.  Malms,  de  Pont.  117.  Hen.  Hunt.  vii.  212.  Hoved. 
Ann.  i.  260.     Mat.  Par.  7. 

t  Malms,  de  Pont.  122. 

4: Sax.  Ciir.  180.  Malms,  de  Pont.  124.  Hen.  Hunt.  vii.  213.  Hoved. 
Ann.  i.  266.     Mat.  Par.  18. 

§  Sax.  Chr.  218.  Malms,  de  Pont.  131.  Hen.  Hmit.  vii.  217.  Hoved. 
Ann.  i.  271.     Mat.  Par.  65. 

II  Hoved.  Ann.  i.  273  Mat.  Par.  69.  Hen.  Hunt.  Hist.  vii.  219.  Flor. 
Wigorn.  and  Simon  Dunelm.  in  anno. 

IT  Hoved.  Ann.  i.  273. 

**  Hoved.  Ann.  i.  277.  Mat.  Par.  77.  Hen.  Hunt.  Hist.  viii.  223- 
Chron.  Mailross. 

tt  Hoved.  Ann.  i.  282.  Mat.  Par.  98.  Chron.  Lich.  in  Whart.  Aug. 
Sac.  T.  110. 


ARCHBISHOPS  OF  CANTERBURY.  301 

71,  (39,)  Richard,  consecrated  by  Alexander  III.,  one  hun- 
1174.         dred  and  sixty-eighth  Bishop  of  Rome,  assisted  by 

his  Cardinals,  the  second  Sunday  after  Easter,  1174.* 

72,  (40,)  Baldwin  Fordensis,  consecrated  Bishop  of  Worces- 
1184.        ter,  August  10,  1180,  translated  to  Canterbury,  De- 
cember 2,  1184.t 

73,  (41,)  Reginald  Fitz-Joceline,  consecrated  Bishop  of  Bath 
1191.        and  Wells,  by  Richard,  June  23,  1174,  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Tarentasia  being  present  and  assisting, 
translated  to  Canterbury,  Decembers,  1191. j: 

74,  (42,)  Hubert  Walter,  consecrated  Bishop  of  Salisbury, 
1193.         October  22,   1189,  translated  to  Canterbury,  May 

30,  1193.§ 

75,  (43,)  Stephen   Langton,   consecrated  by   Innocent  III., 
1207.        one  hundred  and  seventy-fourth  Bishop  of  Rome, 

June  17,  1207.11 

76,  (44,)  Richard  Wethersfield,  consecrated  by  Henry,  Bish- 
1229.         op  of  Rochester,  Trinity  Sunday,  June  10,  1229.1 

77,  (45,)  Edmund,   consecrated  by   Roger  Niger,  Bishop  of 
1234.         London,  assisted  by  twelve  other  Bishops,  April  2, 

1234  ;  Roger  having  been  consecrated  by  Joceline, 
of  Bath  and  Wells,  June  10,  1229  ;  Joceline  having 
been  consecrated  by  William,  Bishop  of  London, 
1206  ;  William  having  been  consecrated  by  Arch- 
bishop Hubert,  assisted  by  thirteen  other  Bishops, 
June  10,  1199.** 

*  Moved.  Ann.  i.  307.     Mat.  Par.  127.     Chron.  Lich.  111. 
t  Hoved.  Ann.  ii.  3.55.     Mat.  Par.  140,  141.     Ann.  Wigorn. 
4:Hoved.  Ann.  ii.405.     Mat.  Par.  214.     MSS.  Hist,  in  Rich.  God.  369. 
§  Hoved.  Ann.  ii.  415.     Mat.  Par.    154,   155.     Diceto   in  Yraago,   cit. 
Rich.  Godwin. 

II  Mat.  Par.  223.     Chron.  Lich.  114. 

fMat.  Par.  355.     Chron.  Lich.  115.     Ann.  Ecc.  Roff.  347. 
**Mat.  Par.  197,  214,  353,  397.     Chron.  Lich.  115.     Mat.  West.  386. 
Dceto,  705,  in  Rich.  God. 

26* 


302  ARCHBISHOPS  OF  CANTERBURY. 

78,  (46,)  Boniface,  consecrated  by  Innocent  IV.,  one  hundred 
1245.         and  seventy-eighth  Bishop  of  Rome,  on  the  festival 

of  the  Epiphany,  1245.* 

79,  (47,)  Robert  Kilwarby,  consecrated  by  William  Britton, 
1272.        or  Button,   Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells,  assisted  by 

eleven  other  Bishops,  February  26,  1272  ;  William 
having  been  consecrated  by  Celestine  V.,  one  hun- 
dred and  seventy-seventh  Bishop  of  Rome,  1247.t 

80,  (48,)  John  Peckham,  consecrated  by  Nicholas  III.,  one 
1278.        hundred  and  eighty-sixth  Bishop  of  Rome,  12784 

81,  (49,)  Robert    Winchelsey,   consecrated    by    Suabino,   a 
1294.         Bishop  and  Cardinal,  September  12, 1294.^ 

82,  (50,)  Walter  Reynold,  consecrated  Bishop  of  Worcester, 
1313.         October  13,  1308,  by  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 

translated  to  Canterbury,  October  24, 1313. || 

83,  (51,)  Simon  Mepham,  consecrated  by  John  XXII. ,  one 
1328.        hundred  and  ninety-fourth  Bishop  of  Rome,  Sep- 
tember 26,  1328.1 

84,  (52,)  John  Stratford,  consecrated  Bishop  of  Winchester, 
1333.        by  Cardinal  Vitali,  Archbishop  of  Albanense,  June 

26,  1323,  translated  to  Canterbury,  December  6, 
1333.** 

85,  (53,)  Thomas  Bradwardine,  consecrated  by  Bertrand,  a 

1348.  Cardinal  Bishop,  July  19,  1348.tt 

86,  (54,)  Simon  Islip,   consecrated  in    St.    Paul's    Church, 

1349.  London,  January  13,    1349,  by   Rodolph  Stratford, 
Bishop  of  London,  William  Edendon,  Bishop  of 

*Mat.  Par.  850.     Chron.  Lich.  115. 

tMat.  Par.  1002,  1008.     Can.  Well.  565.     Chron.  Wikes. 

fRich.  God.  Praas.  Ang.  100.  $  Ussh.  MSS.  in  Chron.  Lich.  117. 

II  Rich.  God.  Praes.  Ang.  103, 105,  462.      . 

IT  Can.  Lieh.  118.     Rich.  God.  105. 

**  Rym.  Feed.  III.  1015,  IV.  461.     Rich.  God.  Praes.  Ang.  1 10. 

t+Rich.  God.  Praes  Ang.  111. 


ARCHBISHOPS  OF  CANTERBURY.  303 

Winchester,  and  John  Thorsby,  Bishop  of  St.  Da- 
vid's ;  Rodolph  having  been  consecrated  at  Canter- 
bury, March  12,  1339,  William  at  Oxford,  May  14, 
1346,  and  John,  September  23,  1347.* 

87,  (55,)  Simon  Langham,  consecrated  Bishop  of  Ely,  by  the 
1366.         Archbishop  of  Canterbmy,  March  19,  1362,  trans- 
lated to  Canterbury,  November  4,  1366. f 

88,  (56,)  William  Wittlesey,  consecrated  Bishop  of  Roches- 
1368.         ter,  Feb.  6,   1361,  translated  to  Worcester,  1362, 

and  to  Canterbury,  Oct.  5,  1368.J 

89,  (57,)  Simon  Sudbury,  consecrated  Bishop    of   London, 
1375.         March  30,  1362,  translated  to  Canterbury,  May  4, 

1375.^ 

90,  (58,)  William  Courtnay,  consecrated  Bishop  of  Hereford, 
1381.         1369,   translated  to  London,  1370,  and  thence  to 

Canterbury,  1381.11 

91,  (59,)  Thomas  Arundel,  consecrated  Bishop  of  Ely,  by 
1396.         Archbishop  Wittlesey,  April  6,  1375,  translated  to 

York,  April  3,  1388,  and  thence  to  Canterbury,  Oct. 
13,  1396.1 

92,  (60,)  Henry  Chichely,  consecrated  Bishop  of  St.  Davids 
1414.        by  Gregory  XIL,  two  hundred  and  third  Bishop  of 

Rome,  June   12th,  1409,  translated  to  Canterbury, 
May  5,  1414.** 

93,  (61,)  John  Stafford,  consecrated    Bishop   of  Bath   and 
1443.        Wells,  May   17,    1425,  translated  to   Canterbury, 

May  3,  1443.tt 

*  Chron.  Lich.  119.     Rich.  God.  Prtes.  Ang.  58,  113,  185,  2G5,  581. 

tRich.  God.  Praes.  Ang.  115,  265. 

iReg.  Wit.  1.     Rich.  God.  532.  §  Regr.  Sud.  1. 

II  Reg.  Court.  324. 

IT  Can.  Lich.  122.     Rym.  Foed.  VII.  537.     Rich.  God.  2G6. 

**  Regr.  Chich.  i.  2. 

tt  Reg.  Chich.  i.  33.     Rich.  God.  127. 


304  ARCHBISHOPS  OF  CANTERBURY. 

94,  (62,)  John  Kemp,  consecrated  Bishop  of  Rochester,  July 
1452.        6,  1419,  translated  to  Chichester,  March  2,  1420, 

thence  to  York,  April  8,  1421,  and  thence  to  Can- 
terbury, Aug.  12,  1452.* 

95,  (63,)  Thomas  Bourcher,  consecrated  Bishop  of  Worces- 
1454.         ter,  May  15,  1435,  translated  to  Ely,  Dec.  20, 1443, 

and  thence  to  Canterbury,  April  22,  1454,t 

96,  (64,)  John  Morton,  consecrated  Bishop  of  Ely,  January 
1486.         31,  1478,  translated  to  Canterbury,  Oct.  6,  I486.:}: 

97,  (65,)  Henry  Dean,  consecrated  Bishop  of  Bangor,  1496, 
1501.        translated  to  Salisbury,  1500,  and  thence  to  Canter- 
bury, 1501.§ 

98,  (66,)  William  Wareham,  consecrated  Bishop  of  London, 
1503.         Sept.  30,  or  Oct.  1,  1502,  translated  to  Canterbury, 

July  2,  1503.11 
This  brings  us  down  to  the  predecessor  of  Archbishop 
Cranmer.  From  that  time  to  the  present,  we  shall  give  the 
names  of  the  consecrators  of  the  consecrators,  in  order  to 
give  our  readers  the  means  of  judging  for  themselves,  how 
idle  are  the  objections  made  to  the  succession,  and  how  utterly 
unfounded  are  all  pretences  of  a  break  in  it.  We  give  im- 
mediately under  the  name  of  the  Bishop,  reference  to  the 
original  Register  where  the  consecration  is  recorded ;  and 
immediately  under  that,  the  various  dioceses  to  which  the  sev- 
eral Bishops  mentioned,  have  been  translated.  It  will  be  seen 
from  this  list,  that  we  do  not  trace  our  succession  through 
Cranmer's  successor.  Cardinal  Pole.  We  give,  therefore,  his 
succession,  as  far  as  it  can  be  traced,  from  which  it  appears, 
that  the  only  one  of  his  consecrators  whose  succession  can 


*Reg.  Chich.  ii.  23,  32.     Reg.  Kemp.  210.     Rich.  God.  692. 
tReg.  Chich.  ii.  52.     Reg.  Staff.  13.     Rich.  God.  129. 
:tHist.  Ehensis,  in  Rich.  God.  131.  §  Rich.  God.  132,  625. 

II  Whar.  I.  124.     Rich.  God.  Prjes.  Ang.  132,  190. 


CONSECRATORS  OF  THE  ARCHBISHOPS- 


305 


be  traced  historically,  traces  it  through  Hodgskins,  one  of  the 
consecrators  of  his  successor,  Matthew  Parker.* 

Among  the  persons  mentioned  as  consecrators  of  English 
Bishops,  consecrated  previous  to  Standish,  are  Robert  Sher- 
bourne,  consecrated  Bishop  of  St.  Davids,  1505,t  translated 
to  Chichester,  1508  ;:|:  John  Fisher,  (Cardinal,)  consecrated 
Bishop  of  Rochester,  1504  ;§  Cuthbert  Tunstall,  consecrated 
Bishop  of  Durham,  1530  ;||  Nicholas  West,  consecrated  Bish- 
op of  Ely,  by  Archbishop  Warham,  1515.^ 


Name  of  Bishop. 

1,  Henry  Standish, 
War.  Reor.  21, 


2,  John  Voysey, 
War.  Reg.  22. 


Diocese.  Consecrators. 

St.  Asaph,        July  6,  1715. 

Warham,  Canterbury. 

Sherborn,  Chichester. 

John  Young,  Tit.  Bp. 
Exeter,  Nov.  6,  1715. 

Warham. 

John  Rochester. 

Thomas  Leighlin. 


iVb  record. 

■No  record. 

No  record. 

No  record. 

No  record. 

Tho.  Cranmer,  ' 

Wm.  Rugg,      \ 

John  Capon, 
t  Reg-.  Smith 
$  Rich.  God. 


Succession  of  Archbishop  of  Pole. 


No  record. 
No  record. 
No  record. 
Step.  Gardiner, 
John  Stokesly, 
John  Hilsey, 
John  Stokesly, 
John  Hilsey, 


Rob.  Parfew 


.1 


.  Linlc. 

Roffen.  Ann.  1504. 


No  record. 
No  record. 
No  record. 
No  record. 
Step-  Gardiner, 
John  Stokesly, 
John  Hilsey, 
Ed.  Bonner, 
Nich.  Heath, 


JuhnHodgskin, 


M.  Griffith, 
John  White, 
Richard  Pate, 
Tho.  Goldwell, 
Ed.  Bonner, 
Nich.  Heath, 


Thos.  Thirlby, 


i  Reg.  War.  12. 

II  Rich.  God.  Dunelm.  Ann.  1530. 


IT  Reg.  War.  19. 


306 


CONSECRATORS  OF  THE  ARCHBISHOPS, 


Name  of  Bishop. 
3,  John  Longland, 

Diocese. 
Lincoln, 

Consecrators. 
May  5,  1721. 

War.  Reg.  23. 

Warham. 
Fisher,  (Cardinal.) 
John  Exeter,  2. 

4,  Thomas  Cranmer,  99  from  St.  John,  (67)  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,            Canterbury,     March  30,  1533. 
Cran.  Reg.  4.                                  John  Lincoln,  3. 

5,  John  Capon, 

or  Salcott, 
Cran.  Reg.  162. 

Bangor, 

John  Exeter,  2. 
Henry  St.  Asaph,  1. 

April  19,  1534. 
Thomas  Canterbury,  4. 
John  Lincoln,  3. 

6,   Hugh  Latimer, 

Worcester, 

Christopher  Sidon. 
1535. 

Laun.  Reg.  173. 

Names  of  Consecrators  not 

7,  William  Rugg, 

Norwich, 

given. 
1536. 

or  Repps. 
Lam.  Reg.  200,  212. 
8,   Robert  Parfew,       St.  Asaph, 
or  Wharton, 
Cran.  Reg.  197. 

lb. 

July  2,  1536. 
Thomas  Canterbury,  4. 
John  Bangor,  5. 

Hereford,  1554. 

William  Norwich,  7. 

9,  John  Hilsey, 

Rochester, 

1536. 

10,   John  Hodgskin,      Bedford, 
Cran.  Reg.  203,  204. 


11,   Henry  Holbeach,    Bristol, 
Cran.  Reg.  215. 
Rochester,  1544. 
Lincoln,  1547. 


Names  Consec.  not  given. 

Dec.  9,  1537. 
John  (Stokely)  London. 
John  Rochester,  9. 
Robert  St.  Asaph,  8. 

March  24,  1537. 
John  Rochester,  9. 
Hugh  Worcester,  6. 
Robert  St.  Asaph,  8. 


SINCE  THE  REFORMATION. 


307 


Name  of  Bishop. 

12,  Nicholas  Ridley, 
Cran.  Reg.  321. 

London,  1550. 

13,  Miles  Coverdale, 
Cran.  Reg.  334. 


Diocese.  Consecrators"-, 

Rochester,       Sept.  5,  1547. 

Henry  Lincoln,  11. 
John  Bedford,  10. 
Thomas  Sidon. 
Exeter,  Aug.  30,  1551. 

Thomas  Canterbury,  4. 
Nicholas  London,  12. 
John  Bedford,  10. 
Rochester,      Aug.  30,  1551. 

Thomas  Canterbury,  4. 
Nicholas  London,  12. 
John  Bedford,  10. 
Reginald  Pole,  100  from  St.  John,  (68)  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury. 
15,  Mathew  Parker,  101  from  St.  John,  (69)  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury,      Canterbury,     Dec.  17,  1559. 
Park.  Reg.  10.  John  Hereford,  14. 

John  Bedford,  10. 
Miles  Exeter,  13. 
William  Barlow.* 


14,  John  Scory, 
Cran.  Reg.  333. 
Chichester,  1551 
Hereford,  1559. 


*  As  the  Jesuits  endeavor  to  invalidate  the  consecration  of  Parker,  be- 
cause we  are  unable  to  trace  historically  the  succession  of  Barlow,  one  of 
the  consecrators,  it  will  be  well  to  state  the  facts  in  detail,  in  regard  to  him. 

William  Barlow,  Doctor  and  Professor  of  Divinity,  and  Prior  of  the  Can- 
ons regular  of  Bisham,  was  Elected  Bishop  of  St.  Asaph,  by  royal  license, 
dated  January  7,  1525,  27th  Henry  VIII.  The  royal  assent  being  given, 
February  22d,  he  was  consecrated  and  confirmed  in  his  See  by  the  Arch- 
bishop, February  23d.  Richard  Rawlins,  the  eightieth  Bishop  of  St.  Da- 
vids, having  died  on  the  eighteenth  of  February,  1535,  Barlow  was  transla- 
ted to  that  See  in  the  month  of  April  following,  wliich,  as  the  year  began 
at  the  Vernal  Equinox,  was  early  as  1536.  The  Archbishop's  act  of  con- 
secration is  dated  April  21,  1536,  28th  Henry  VIII.  William  Knight,  the 
forty-fifth  Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells,  died  Sept.  29,  1547,  and  Barlow  was 
again  translated  by  virtue  of  letters  patent  of  Edward  VI.,  dated  Feb.  3, 
1548.  He  continued  Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells,  till  the  accession  of  Mary, 
when  he  fled  to  Germany,  and  continued  to  live  there  in  poverty  and  exile 


308 


CONSECRATORS  OF  THE  ARCHBISHOPS, 


Name  of  Bishop.         Diocese. 

16,  Edmund  Grindal,  102  from 
of  Canterbury,     London, 

Par.  Reg.  18. 
York,  1570. 
Canterbury,  1573. 

17,  Edwin  Sandes,     Worcester, 
Par.  Reg.  32. 

London,  1570. 
York,  1576. 

18,  Thomas  Young,    St.  David's, 
Par.  Reg.  54. 

York,  1560. 


19,  Robert  Home, 
Par.  Reg.  88. 


20,  John  Piers, 
Grind.  Reg.  17. 


Winchester, 


Rochester, 


Consecrators. 

St.  John,  (70)  Archbishop 

Dec.  21,1559. 
Matthew  Canterbury,  15. 
John  Hereford,  14. 
John  Bedford,  10. 

Dec.  21,  1559. 
Matthew  Canterbury,  15. 
John  Hereford,  14. 
John  Bedford,  10. 

Jan  21,  1560. 
Matthew  Canterbury,  15. 
Edmund  London,  16. 
John  Bedford,  10. 
Feb.  16,  1560. 
Matthew  Canterbury,  15. 
Thomas  St.  David's,  18. 
Edmund  London,  16. 

April  15,  1575. 
Edmund  Canterbury,  16. 


till  he  was  recalled  by  Elizabeth.  During  the  eighteen  years  of  his  Epis- 
copate in  the  Sees  of  St.  David  and  Bath  and  Wells,  he  was  present  and 
assisting  at  the  consecration  of  Arthur  Bulkly,  Bishop  of  Bangor,  Feb.  19, 
1541.  John  Christopherson,  the  forty-first  Bishop  of  Chichester,  died  Jan* 
uary  1st  or  2d,  1557-8,  and  Barlow  was  elected  his  successor;  but  as  Car- 
dinal Pole  died  Nov.  17,  1558,  the  same  day  on  which  Queen  Mary  died, 
the  See  of  Canterbury  was  vacant,  and  consequently  there  could  be  no  con- 
firmation of  Barlow's  election  by  the  Metropolitan,  as  the  law  required. 
For  this  reason,  in  Elizabeth's  commission  to  consecrate  Parker,  dated 
Dec.  6,  2d  Eliz.,  (1559,)  he  is  styled  "William  Barlow,  sometime  Lord 
Bishop  of  Bath  and  Wells,  now  elect  of  Chichester."  The  consecration  of 
Parker  took  place  Dec.  17,  1559.  The  royal  assent  was  given  to  the  elec- 
tion of  Barlow,  Dec.  18,  1559,  and  on  the  20lh  of  December,  he  received 
the  confirmation  of  the  Archbishop.  The  temporalities  were  restored  to 
him  on  the  23d  of  March,  following,  or  the  beginning  of  the  new  year. 
He  held  the  See  of  Chichester  till  his  death,  which  took  place  August  13th, 
1568. 


SINCE  THE  REFORMATION. 


309 


Name  of  Bishop. 
Salisbury,  1575. 
York,  1588. 
21,  John  Aylmer, 
Grind.  Re^.  27. 


Diocese.  Consecratws. 

Edwin  London,  17. 
Robert  Winchester,  19. 
London,  March  24,  1576. 

Edmund  Canterbury,  16. 
Edwin  York,  17. 
John  Rochester,  20. 
22,  John  Whitgift,  103  from  St.  John,  (71)  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  Worcester,      April  21,  1577. 

Grind.  Reg.  34.  Edmund  Canterbury,  16, 

Canterbury,  1583.  John  London,  21. 

Robert  Winchester,  19. 
Rochester,     March  16,  1577. 

Edmund  Canterbury,  16. 
John  London,  21. 
John  Salisbury,  20. 
Bristol,  Dec.  14,  1589. 

John  Canterbury,  22. 
John  London,  21. 
John  Rochester,  23. 
Bangor,  June  25,  1595. 

John  Canterbury,  22. 
Richard  London,  24. 
John  Rochester,  23. 
Chichester,     Aug,  15,  1596. 

John  Canterbury,  22. 
John  Rochester,  23. 
Richard  Bangor,  25. 
27,  Richard  Bancroft,  104  from  St.  John,  (72)  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  London,  May  8,  1597. 

Whit.  Reg.  82.  John  Canterbury,  22. 

Canterbury,  1604. 


23,  John  Young, 
Grind.  Reg.  43. 


24,  Richard  Fletcher, 
Whit.  Reg.  62. 

Worcester,  1593. 
London,  1594. 

25,  Richard  Vaughan, 
Whit.  Reg.  71. 

Chester,  1597. 
London,  1604. 

26,  Anthony  Watson, 
Whit.  Reg.  90. 


27 


John  Rochester,  23. 
Richard  Bangor,  25. 


310 


CONSECRATORS  OF  THE  ARCHBISHOPS, 


Name  of  Bishop. 

Diocese. 

Consecrators. 

28,  William  Barlow, 

Rochester 

,       June  30,  1605. 

Banc.  Reg.  35. 

Richard  Canterbury,  27. 

Lincoln,  1608. 

Richard  London,  25. 
Anthony  Chichester,  26. 

29,  Launcelot  Andrews 

,  Chichester,     Nov.  3,  1605. 

Banc.  Reg.  42. 

Richard  Canterbury,  27. 

Ely,  1609. 

Richard  London,  25. 

Winchester,  1618. 

William  Rochester,  28. 

30,  James  Montague, 

Bath  and  Wells,     April  17,  1608. 

Banc.  Reg.  68. 

Richard  Canterbury,  27. 

William  Rochester,  28. 
Launcelot  Chichester,  29. 
31,  Richard  Neyle,         Rochester,     Oct.  9,  1609. 

Banc.  Reg.  83.  Richard  Canterbury,  27. 

Coventry,  1610.  Launcelot  Chichester,  29. 

Lincoln,  1613.  James  Bath  and  Wells,  30. 

Durham,  1617. 
Winchester,  1627. 
George  Abbott,  105   from  St.  John,  (73)  Archbishop  of 


32, 

Canterbury, 
Banc.  Reg.  96. 
London,  1609. 
Canterbury,  1611, 

33,  Samuel  Harsnet, 
Banc.  Reg.  102. 

Norwich,  1619. 
York,  1628. 

34,  John  Buckeridge, 
Abb.  Reg.  i.  26. 

Ely,  1628. 

34*,  John  King, 
Abb.  Reg.  i.  28. 


Lichfield,      Dec.  3,  1609. 

Richard  Canterbury,  27. 

Launcelot  Ely,  29. 

Richard  Rochester,  31. 
Chichester,     Dec.  3,  1609. 

Richard  Canterbury,  27. 

Launcelot  Ely,  29. 

Richard  Rochester. 
Rochester,     June  9,  1611. 

George  Canterbury,  32. 

Launcelot  Ely,  29. 

Richard  Coventry,  31. 
London,  Sept.  8,  1611. 

George  Canterbury,  32. . 


SINCE  THE  REFORMATION. 


311 


Name  of  Bishop.         Diocese. 


Consecrators. 
Richard  Coventry,  31. 

John  Rochester,  34. 
Bristol,         Dec.  14,  1617. 

George  Canterbury,  32. 

John  Rochester,  34. 

Launcelot  Ely,  29. 

Mark,  Archbishop  Spalatro. 
Dec.  14,  1617. 

George  Canterbury,  32. 

John  Rochester,  34. 

John  London,  34*. 

Mark,  Archbishop  Spalatro. 
Oxford,  May  9,  1619. 

George  Canterbury,  32. 

John  Rochester,  34. 

Nicholas  Ely,  35. 
Lincoln,       Nov.  11,  1621. 

George  London,  36. 

Nicholas  Ely,  35 

John  Oxford,  37. 
39,  William  Laud,  106  from    St.  John,   (74)  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  St.  David's,  Nov.  18,  1621. 


35,  Nicholas  Felton, 

Abb.  Reg.  i.  93. 

Ely,  1619. 


36,  George  Monteigne,  Lincoln, 
Abb.  Reg.  i.  105. 
London,  1621. 


37,  John  Howson, 
Durham,  1621. 

38,  John  Williams, 
Abb.  Reg.  ii.  62. 

York,  1641. 


Abb.  Reg.  ii.  69. 

Bath  and  Wells,  1627. 
London,  1628. 
Canterbury,  1633. 

40,  Robert  Wright,         Bristol, 
Abb.  Reg.  ii.  85. 

Coventry,  1632. 

41,  Joseph  Hall,  Exeter, 
Abb.  Reff.  ii.  114. 


George  London,  36. 
Nicholas  Ely,  35. 
John  Oxford,  37. 

March  23,  1622. 
George  Canterbury,  32. 
John  Lincoln,  38. 
Launcelot  Winchester,  29. 

Dec.  23,  1627. 
George  London,  36. 
John  Rochester,  34. 
Richard  Durham,  31. 


312 


CONSECRATORS  OF  THE  ARCHBISHOPS, 


Diocese. 

Rochester, 


Name  of  Bishop 

42,  Walter  Curl, 
Abb.  Reg.ii.  156. 

Bath  and  Wells,  1629. 
Winchester,  1632. 

43,  John  Bowie,  Rochester 


Consecrators. 

Sept.  7,  1628. 
George  Canterbury,  32. 
Richard  Winchester,  31. 
John  Ely,  34. 

Feb.  7,  1629. 
George  Canterbury,  36. 
Samuel  York,  33. 
Walter  Bath  and  Wells,42. 
44,  William   Juxon,   107  from  St.  John,  (75)  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  London,  Oct.  7, 1633. 

Laud.  Reg.  i.  18.  William  Canterbury,  39. 

Canterbury,  1660. 


Abb.  Reg.  iii.  17. 


45,  Matthew  Wren,      Hereford, 
Laud.  Reg.  i.  44. 

Norwich,  1635. 
Ely,  1638. 

46,  Robert  Skinner,      Bristol, 
Laud.  Reg.  i.  66. 

Oxford,  1640. 
Worcester,  1663. 

47,  Brian  Duppa,  Chichester, 
Laud.  Reg.  ii.  46. 

Salisbury,  1641. 


Richard  York,  31. 
John  Rochester,  43. 

March  8,  1634. 
William  Canterbury,  39. 
Walter  Winchester,  42. 
Joseph  Exeter,  41. 

Jan.  15,  1636. 
William  Canterbury,  39. 
William  London,  44. 
Matthew  Norwich,  45. 

June  17,  1638. 
William  Canterbury,  39. 
Robert  Coventry,  40. 
Matthew  Ely,  45. 


Winchester,  1660. 
48,  Accepted  Freewen,  Lichfield  and  Coventry,  April  1643. 
Wood  Ath.  Oxon.  ii.  1147.  John  York,  38. 

York,  1660.  Robert  Oxford,  46. 

Brian  Salisbury,  47. 

From  the  death  of  Charles  I.,  in  January,  1648-9,  to  the  res- 
toration of  Charles  II.,  in  1660,  Sir  Edward  Hyde,  afterwards 
Earl  of  Clarendon,  was,  under  Providence,  the  prop  and  stay 
of  the  fallen  Episcopacy.  The  last  consecration  in  Eng- 
land, before  the  subversion  of  the  monarchy,  took  place  in 


SINCE  THE  REFORMATION. 


313 


1643  ;  and  at  the  time  of  the  King's  execution  there  were 
but  twenty  Bishop's  living.  Of  these,  eleven  died  before  the 
restoration.  With  good  reason  therefore  did  Sir  Edward  ex- 
press himself  in  the  following  manner,  in  his  correspondence 
with  Dr.  John  Barwick  :  "  I  will  not  mention  the  age  of  the 
consecrators,  though  it  hath  put  me  into  many  a  fright.  If  I 
were  a  Presbyterian  I  should  hope  to  spin  out  the  time  till  all 
the  Bishops  were  dead.  I  do  wish  in  all  events,  that  the  suc- 
cession were  provided  for.  The  conspiracies  to  destroy  it 
are  very  evident,  and  if  there  can  be  no  combination  to  pre- 
serve it,  it  must  expire.  I  do  assure  you,  the  names  of  all 
the  Bishops  who  are  alive,  and  their  several  ages,  are  as  well 
known  at  Rome  as  in  England  ;  and  both  the  Papist  and  Pres- 
hyterian  value  themselves  very  much,  upon  computing  in  how 
few  years  the  Church  of  England  must  expire.  God  knows 
it  will  be  almost  a  miracle,  if  the  winter  doth  not  take  away 
half  the  Bishops  that  are  left  alive,"  &c.  &c.  In  conse- 
quence of  these  earnest  expressions  of  alarm,  authority  was 
obtained  in  1659,  from  Charles  II.,  then  at  Brussels, nominating 
for  consecration  Dr.  Hammond,  Dr.  Sheldon,  Dr.  Lacy  or 
Lancy,  Dr.  Feme,  and  Dr.  Walton.  But  the  restoration  of 
the  King  and  the  re-establishment  of  the  Church  rendered 
this  measure  unnecessary.  Of  the  nine  Bishops  then  re- 
stored, one  died  in  1662,  one  in  1663,  one  in  1664,  one  in 
1665,  one  in  1666,  one  in  1667,  one  in  1669,  and  two  in  1670. 

Name  of  Bishop.  Diocese.  Consecrators. 

49,  Gilbert  Sheldon,  108  from  St.  John,   (76)  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  London,     Oct.  18,  1660. 

Jux.  Reg.  208.  Brian  Winchester,  47. 

Canterbury,  1663.  Accepted  York,  48. 

Matthew  Ely,  45. 
60,   Humphrey  Hinchm an,  Salisbury,  Oct.  18,  1660. 
Jux.  Reg.  208.  Brian  Winchester,  47. 

London,  1663.  Accepted  York,  48. 

27*  Matthew  Ely,  45. 


314 


CONSECRATORS  OF  THE  ARCHBISHOPS, 


Name  of  Bishop. 
51,  George  Morly, 
Jux.  Reg.  208. 
Winchester 


1662. 


Diocese.  Consecrators. 

Worcester,     Oct.  18,  1660. 

Brian  Winchester,  47. 
Accepted  York,  48. 
Matthew  Ely,  45. 
Exeter,  July  20,  1662. 

Gilbert  London,  49. 
George  Winchester,  51. 
Humphrey  Salisbury,  50. 
Rochester,     Nov.  25,  1666. 

Gilbert  Canterbury,  49. 
Humphrey  London,  50. 
George  Winchester,  51. 
Bath  and  Wells,  Feb.  9,  1672. 

Gilbert  Canterbury,  49. 
s     Humphrey  London,  50. 
John  Rochester,  53. 

Dec.  6,  1746. 
Gilbert  Canterbury,  49. 
Seth  Salisbury,  52. 
John  Rochester,  53. 
56,  William  Sancroft,  109  from  St.  John,  (77)  Archbishop 
of  Canterbury,  Canterbury,      Jan.  27,  1677, 

Sane.  Reg.  7.  Henry  London,  55. 

Seth  Salisbury,  52. 
John  Rochester,  53. 
St.  Asaph,     Oct.  3,  1680. 

William  Canterbury,  56. 
Henry  London,  55. 
John  Rochester,  53. 
Rochester,     Nov.  2,  1684. 

William  Canterbury,  56. 
Henry  London,  55. 
Seth  Salisbury,  52. 
59,  Jonathan  Trelawney,  Bristol,         Nov.  8,  1685. 


52,  Seth  Ward, 
Jux.  Reg.  302. 

Salisbury,  1667. 

53,  John  Ek)lben, 
Shel.  Reg.  6. 

Yorfc^  1683. 

54,  Peter  Mewes, 
Shel.  Reg.  108. 

Winchester,  1684 

55,  Henry  Compton, 
Shel.  Reg.  123. 

London,  1675. 


Oxford, 


57,  William  Lloyd, 
Sane.  Reg.  43. 

Coventry,  1692. 
Worcester,  1699. 

58,  Thomas  Spratt, 
Sane.  Reg.  102. 


SINCE  THE  REFORJIATION. 


315 


Name  of  Bishop. 
Sane.  Reg.  142. 
Exeter,  1689. 
Winchester,  1707. 
60,  Gilbert  Burnett, 
Sane.  Reor.  190. 


Diocese.  Consea-ators. 

William  Canterbury,  56. 
Henry  London,  55. 
Peter  Winchester,  54. 
Salisbury,       March  31,  1689. 

Henry  London^  55, 
William  St.  Asaph,  57. 
Peter  Winchester,  54. 

May  11,  1690. 
Henry  London,  55. 
William  St.  Asaph,  57. 
Peter  Winchester,  54. 


Oxford, 


61,  John  Hough, 
Reg.  Dean  and  Chap.  Cant.  25. 

Coventry,  1669. 
Worcester,  1717. 

62,  John  TiLlotson,  110  from  St.  John,  (78)  Archbishop  of 

Canterbury,  Canterbury,     May  21,  1691. 

Till.  Reg.  9.  Peter  Winchester,  54. 

William  St.  Asaph,  57. 
Gilbert  Salisbury,  60. 

63,  Thomas  Tenison,  111  from  St.  John,  (79)  Archbishop  of 


Canterbury, 
Till.  Reg.  95. 

Canterbury,  1694. 


Lincoln, 


64,  John  Evans, 
Reg.  i.  Tenn.  58 
Meath,  1715. 


Bangor, 


Jan.  10,  1691. 
John  Canterbury,  62. 
Henry  London,  55. 
Gilbert  Salisbury,  60. 

Jan.  4,  1701. 
Thomas  Canterbury,  63. 
Henry  London,  55. 
Gilbert  Salisbury,  60. 
65,  William  Wake,  1 1 2  from  St.  John,  (80)  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  Lincoln,  Oct.  21,  1705. 

Tenn.  Reg.  i.  100.  Thomas  Canterbury,  63. 

Henry  London,  55. 
Gilbert  Salisbury,  60. 
Gloucester,      Jan.  16,  1714. 

Gilbert  Salisbury,  60. 
John  Coventry,  61. 
John  Bangor,  64. 


Canterbury,  1715. 

66,  Richard  Willis, 
Tenn.  Reg.  i.  146. 
Salisbury,  1721. 
Winchester,  1723, 


316 


CONSECRATORS   OF   THE  ARCHBISHOPS, 


Name  of  Bishop.  Diocese.  Consecrators. 

67,  John  Potter,  113  from  St.  Jolin,   (81)  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  Oxford, 

Tenn.  Reg.  i.  176. 


Lincoln, 


Jonathan  Winchester,  59. 
William  Lincoln,  65. 
Richard  Gloucester,  66. 

Feb.  12,  1715. 
William  Canterbury,  65. 
Jonathan  Winchester,  59. 
Richard  Gloucester,  66. 
Gloucester,     Dec.  3,  1721. 

William  Canterbury,  65. 
Richard  Salisbury,  66. 
Edmund  Lincoln,  68. 

Dec.  3,1721. 
William  Canterbury,  65. 
Richard  Salisbury,  66. 
Edmund  Lincoln,  68. 

71,  Thomas  Tanner,     St.  Asaph,        Jan.  23,  1731. 
Wake  Reg.  ii.  92.  William  Canterbury,  65. 

Edmund  London,  68. 
Joseph  Rochester,  69. 

72,  Nicholas  Claggett,  St.  David's,     Jan.  23,  1731. 


Canterbury,  1737. 

68,  Edmund  Gibson, 
Wake.  Reg.  i.  21. 

London,  1723. 

69,  Joseph  Wilcocks, 
Wake  Reg.  i.  113. 

Rochester,  1731. 


70,  Richard  Reynolds,  Bangor, 
Wake  Reg.  i.  104. 
Lincoln,  1723. 


Wake  Reg.  ii.  100. 
Exeter,  1743. 

73,  Martin  Benson, 
Wake  Reg.  ii.  153. 


William  Canterbury,  65. 
Edmund  London,  68. 
Joseph  Rochester,  69. 
Gloucester,     Jan.  19,  1734. 

Edmund  London,  68. 
.Tohn  Oxford,  67. 
Joseph  Rochester,  69. 
74,  Thomas  Secker,  116  from  St.  John,  (84)  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  Bristol,  Jan.  19,  1734. 

Wake  Reg.  ii.  163.  Edmund  London,  68. 

Oxford,  1737.  John  Oxford,  67. 

Canterbury,  1758.  Joseph  Rochester,  69. 


SINCE  THE  REFORMATION. 


317 


Name  of  Bishop.         Diocese.  Consecrators. 

75,  Thomas  Herring,  114  from  St.  John,  (82)  Archbishop  of 


Bangor,  Jan.  15,  1737 

John  Canterbury,  67. 
Nicholas  St.  Davids,  72. 
Joseph  Rochester,  69. 
Bristol,  Dec.  3,  1738. 

John  Canterbury,  67. 
Joseph  Rochester,  69. 
Nicholas  St.  Davids,  72. 
St.  David's,    Jan.  2,  1742. 

John  Canterbury,  67. 
1743.  Joseph  Rochester,  69. 

Richard  Lincoln,  70. 
Matthew  Hutton,  115  from  St.  John,  (83)  Archbishop 


Canterbury, 
Pot.  Reg.  41. 

York,  1743. 
Canterbury,  1747. 

76,  Joseph  Butler, 
Pot.  Reg.  68. 

Durham,  1750. 

77,  Edward  Willes, 
Pot.  Reg.  114. 

Bath  and  Wells 


78, 


Bansfor, 


Lincoln, 


of  Canterbury, 
Pot.  Reg.  146. 
York,  1747. 
Canterbury,  1757. 

79,  John  Thomas, 
Pot.  Reg.  169. 

Salisbury,  1757. 
Winchester,  1757 

80,  Richard  Trevor, 
Pot.  Reg.  190. 

Durham,  1752. 


81,  Zachariah  Pearce,  Bangor. 
Herr.  Reg.  38. 
Rochester,  1756. 


Nov.  13,  1743. 
Joseph  Rochester,  69. 
Nicholas  Exeter,  72. 
Joseph  Bristol,  76. 

April  1,  1744. 
John  Canterbury,  67. 
Joseph  Rochester,  69. 
Martin  Gloucester,  73. 
St.  Dayid's,    April  1,  1744. 

John  Canterbury,  67. 
Joseph  Rochester,  69. 
Martin  Gloucester,  73. 

Feb.  2,  1747. 
Thomas  Canterbury,  75. 
Joseph  Rochester,  69. 
Martin  Gloucester,  73. 
82,  Robert  Drummond,  St.  Asaph,      April  24,  1748. 

Her.  Reg.  65.  Thomas  Canterbury,  75. 

Salisbury,  1761.  .Joseph  Rochester,  69. 

York,  1761.  Martin  Gloucester,  73. 


318 


CONSECRATORS  OF  THE  ARCHBISHOPS, 


Name  of  Bishop.         Diocese.  Consecrators. 

83,  Frederick  Cornwallis,  1 17  from  St.  John,(85)  Archbish- 
op of  Caiiterbury,Lichfield  and  Coventry,  Feb.  18, 1749 


Her.  Reg.  121. 
Canterbury,  1768. 

84,  James  Johnson,     Gloucester, 
Her.  Reg.  171. 

Worcester,  1759. 

85,  Edmund  Keene,    Chester, 
Her.  Reg.  154. 

Ely,  1771. 

86,  John  Hume,  Bristol, 
Her.  Reg.  244. 

Oxford,  1758. 
Salisbury,  1766. 

87,  John  Egerton,       Bangor, 
Her.  Reg.  255. 

Coventry,  1768. 
Diurham,  1771. 


Thomas  Canterbury,  75. 
Joseph  Rochester,  69. 
Martin  Gloucester,  73. 

Dec.  10,  1752. 
Thomas  Canterbury,  75. 
Joseph  Rochester,  69. 
Zachariah  Bangor,  81. 

March  22,  1752. 
Thomas  Canterbury,  75. 
Joseph  Durham,  76. 
Frederick  Lichfield,  83. 

July  4,  1756. 
Thomas  Oxford,  74. 
Zachariah  Rochester,  81. 
Edmund  Chester,  85. 

July  4,  1756. 
Thomas  Oxford,  74. 
Zachariah  Rochester,  81. 
Edmund  Chester,  85. 


88,  Richard  Terrick,  Peterborough,    June  3,  1757. 


Hutt.  Reg.  42. 
London,  1764. 

89,  Philip  Young,       Bristol, 
Seek.  Reg.  30. 
Norwich,  1761. 


90,  Robert  Lowth, 

Seek.  Reg.  235. 

Oxford,  1766. 


St.  David's, 


Matthew  Canterbury,  78. 
Edmund  Chester,  85. 
John  Bristol,  86. 

June  29,  1758. 
Thomas  Canterbury,  74. 
Zachariah  Rochester,  81. 
John  Oxford,  86. 

June  15,  1766. 
Thomas  Canterbury,  74. 
Richard  London,  88. 
Edw.  Bath  and  Wells,  77. 


SINCE  THE  REFORMATION. 


319 


92,  Shute  Barrington 
Corn.  Reg.  82. 

Durham,  1791. 

93,  John  Hinchliffe, 
Corn.  Reg.  93. 


94,  William  Markham,  Chester, 
Corn.  Reg.  113. 
York,  1777. 


Name  of  Bishop.  Diocese.  Consecrators. 

91,  Charles  Moss,  St.  David's,    Nov.  30,  1766. 

Seek.  Reg.  261.  Richard  London,  88. 

Bath  and  Wells,  1774.  John  Winchester,  79. 

Edw.Bathand  Wells,  77. 
Llandaff,         Oct.  1,  1769. 

Frederick  Canterbury,  83. 
Richard  London,  88. 
Zachariah  Rochester,  81. 
Peterborough,  Dec.  17,  1769. 

Frederick  Canterbury,  83. 
Richard  London^  88. 
John  Winchester,  79. 

Feb.  17,  1771. 
Robert  York,  82. 
Richard  Durham,  80. 
James  Worcester,  84. 
Rochester,      Nov.  13,  1774. 

Richard  London,  88. 
Philip  Norwich,  89. 
Shute  Llandaff,  92. 
118   from  St.  John,    (86)   Archbishop  of 
Bangor,  Feb.  12,  1775. 

Frederick  Canterbury,  83. 
Edmund  Ely,  85. 
Robert  Oxford,  90. 

Feb.  9,  1777. 

William  York,  295. 

John  Durham,  87. 

Shute  Llandaff,  92. 

WILLIAM  WHITE,   Pennsylvania,  Feb.  4,  1787. 

Moore  Reg.  33.  John  Canterbury,  96. 

William  York,  94. 
Chas.  Bath  and  Wells,  91. 
John  Peterborough,  93. 


95,  John  Thomas, 
Corn.  Reg.  171 


96,  John  Moore 

Canterbury, 
Corn.  Reg.  204. 
Canterbury,  1783 

97,  Beilby  Porteus, 
Corn.  Reg.  25. 

London,  1787. 


Chester, 


220  DIFFERENT  MODES  OF  TRACING  THE  SUCCESSION. 

Name  of  Bishop.  Diocese.  Consecrators. 

SAMUEL  PROVOOST,  New  York,  Feb.  4,  1787. 
Moore  Reg.  33.  John  Canterbury,  96. 

William  York,  94. 
Chas.  Bath  and  Wells,  91. 
John  Peterborough,  93. 
JAMES  MADISON,      Virginia,       Sept.  19,  1790. 
Moore  Reg.  192.  John  Canterbury,  96. 

Beilby  London,  97. 
John  Rochester,  95. 

We  see  from  the  facts  already  detailed,  that  Augustine 
traced  his  succession  back  through  Irenseus  to  St.  John,  and 
consequently  our  succession  properly  comes  from  that  source. 
But  the  succession  of  the  later  Bishops  may  be  traced  through 
the  line  of  the  Bishops  of  Rome,  if  desired.  Thus  Theodore, 
the  seventh  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  was  consecrated  by 
the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  filled  the  Arch- Episcopal  chair,  from 
668  to  693,  twenty-five  years.  Those  Bishops,  therefore, 
who  were  consecrated  by  him  in  England,  could  trace  their 
succession,  through  him,  back  to  St.  Peter,  and  through  those 
who  assisted  him  in  consecrating,  back  to  St.  John.  Now  in 
this  time,  three  Bishops  were  consecrated  in  the  Diocese  of 
Lichfield  and  Coventry  ;  two  in  the  Diocese  of  London  ;  two 
in  the  Diocese  of  Helham,  now  Norwich  ;  four  in  the  Diocese 
of  Rochester ;  two  in  the  Diocese  of  Winchester  ;  three  in 
the  Diocese  of  Worcester ;  and  perhaps  others  in  other 
places.  Consequently,  all  the  ancient  Dioceses  of  Canter- 
bury must  have  been  filled  with  Bishops  who  could  trace 
their  succession  in  both  of  these  ways,  and  hence,  all  subse- 
quent Bishops  must  be  able  to  do  the  same. 

The  successor  of  Theodore  was  Birthwald,  consecrated  by 
Godwin,  Metropolitan  Bishop  of  Wales,*  and  we  shall  show 

♦  Bede,  V.  8,  reads  Galliarum,  others  Walliarum. 


DIFFERENT  MODES  OF  TRACING  THE  SUCCESSION.  321 

that  the  Bishops  of  Wales  traced  their  succession  to  Jerusa- 
lem and  St.  James.  Birthwald  filled  the  Arch- Episcopal  See 
thirty-nine  years,  from  693  to  732,  in  which  time  there  were 
consecrated  for  the  Diocese  of  Lincoln,  tivo  Bishops,  07ie  in 
Lichfield  and  Coventry ;  one  in  London  ;  one  in  Rochester ; 
two  in  Salisbury  ;  one  in  Winchester  ;  one  in  Worcester,  and 
probably  others.  All  the  Bishops  in  the  province  of  Canter- 
bury, subsequent  to  the  time  of  Birthwald,  must,  therefore, 
have  been  able  to  trace  their  succession  through  him  to  Jeru- 
salem and  St.  James,  and  through  those  who  assisted  him  in 
consecrating,  to  St.  John  and  to  St.  Peter. 

Again,  Theobald,  the  thirty-seventh  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, was  consecrated  by  Albert,  Bishop  of  Hostia ;  and 
during  his  Episcopate  there  were  consecrated  one  Bishop 
each,  in  the  Dioceses  of  St.  David's,  Hereford,  Lincoln,  Nor- 
wich, Salisbury  ;  two  Bishops  each  in  the  Dioceses  of  Ely, 
Llandaff,  London,  Rochester,  and  Worcester.  There  have 
also  been  several  other  consecrations  by  foreign  Bishops,  as, 
Robert  Winchelsy,  forty-ninth  Archbishop,  by  Suabino,  John 
Stratford,  fifty-second  Archbishop,  by  Vitali,  and  Thomas 
Bradwardine,  fifty-third  Archbishop,  by  Bertrand,  all  Cardinal 
Bishops,  so  that  the  succession  may  be  traced  in  a  great  vari- 
ety of  ways. 

There  is  one  other  foreign  Bishop  that  deserves  notice.  In 
1617,  Mark  A.  de  Dominis,  the  Archbishop  of  Spalatr6,  a 
Church  in  communion  with  the  See  of  Rome,  assisted  in  the 
consecration  of  Nicholas  Felton  and  George  Monteigne,  and 
these  assisted  in  the  consecration  of  so  many  other  Bishops, 
that  since  1633,  there  has  not  been  a  Bishop  consecrated  in 
England  that  could  not  trace  his  succession  to  the  Archbishops 
of  Spalatro,  and  then  back  to  the  Apostles.  Consequently,  if 
there  had  been  any  break  in  the  succession  before  that  time, 
we  should  now  have  a  valid  succession. 
28 


322        ENGLISH  SUCCESSION  FROM  JERUSALEM. 

II.  SUCCESSION  FROM  JERUSALEM. 

At  whatever  age  Christianity  was  first  introduced  into 
Britain,  whether  in  the  first  century,  as  we  shall  see  in  the 
course  of  the  work  is  probable,  or,  as  others  suppose,  at  a  still 
later  period,  it  was  preached  by  Greek  missionaries.  This 
is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  the  old  Greek  and  British  histo- 
rians relate  the  same  occurrences,  in  regard  to  that  primitive 
period,  so  similarly,  that  they  must  have  both  derived  their 
knowledge  from  the  same  source,  or  from  the  records  of  con- 
temporaneous historians.  The  British  Liturgy  was  also  of 
Eastern  origin,  and  unlike  that  of  Rome.  Their  ecclesiastical 
rites  were  also  those  of  the  East,  and  not  of  the  West,  not- 
withstanding there  was  frequent  intercourse  between  the 
Churches  of  Rome  and  Britain.  The  conquest  of  the  Brit- 
ains  by  the  Saxons,  and  their  entire  subjugation,  has  rendered 
it  necessary  for  us  to  depend  mostly  upon  foreign  and  Saxon 
writers  for  the  history  of  the  British  Church.  From  these 
materials  Archbishop  Ussher,  in  his  Britannicarum  Ecclesia- 
rum  Antiquitates,  quarto,  Dublin,  1629;  and  Bishop  Stilling- 
fleet,  in  his  Origines  Britannic^,  have  drawn  the  following 
facts. 

In  the  year  624  or  626,  February  20,  Honorius,  the  seven- 
tieth Bishop  of  Rome,  issued  a  Bull,  in  which  it  is  stated  as 
a  well  known  fact  in  history,  that  Lucius,  a  British  King,  in 
the  second  century,  granted  certain  privileges  to  the  Univer- 
sity of  Cambridge  ;  and  in  the  antiquities  of  Cambridge,  in  the 
somewhat  doubtful  Annals  of  Burton,  A.  D.  141,  this  is  said  to 
have  been  done  for  the  reason  that  Christianity  had  been  faith- 
fully preached  there.*  It  is  also  said  in  the  old  Register  of 
LlandafT,  that  Lucius  sent  an  embassy  to  Rome,  and  that  El- 

♦Siill.  Orig.  43. 


BRITISH  ARCHBISHOPS  OF  LONDON.  323 

vanus  was  consecrated  Bishop  by  Eleutherius,  the  twelfth 
Bishop  of  Rome.*  The  names  of  the  earliest  British  Bishops 
have  not  generally  been  preserved,  but  the  following  Arch- 
bishops of  London  have  come  down  to  us,  but  whether  they 
form  the  full  line,  is  uncertain. 

1.  Theanus,  who  founded  St.  Peter's  Church,  Cornhill, 
died  about  IST.f 

2.  Elvanus,  consecrated  by  Eleutherius,  twelfth  Bishop  of 
Rome.  J 

3.  Cadoc,  or  Cadar. 

4.  Obinus. 

5.  Conanus. 

6.  Paliadius. 

7.  Stephanus,  suffered  martyrdom,  Sept.  17,  A.  D.  303. 

8.  Iltutus,  or  Restitutus,  one  of  the  three  British  Bishops 
present  at  the  Council  of  Aries,  A.  D.  312,  or  314. 

9.  Theodwin,  or  Dedwin. 

10.  Theodred. 

11.  Hilary. 

12.  Guidelinus. 

13.  Vodin,  slain  by  Hengist,  the  Dane. 

14.  Theonus,  consecrated  Bishop  of  Gloucester,  translated 
to  London,  fled  from  the  Saxons,  A.  D.  587,  and  with  the 
great  body  of  his  clergy,  accompanied  by  Thadioc,  Archbish- 
op of  York,  went  and  settled  in  Wales. § 

Previous  to  this  time,  there  had  been  three  Archbishoprics  in 
Britain — London,  York,  and  Caerleon  ;  the  two  first  of  which 
were  destroyed  by  the  Saxons,  and  the  latter  transferred  to 
Meneva,  now  St.  David's.  Our  knowledge  of  the  Bishops  of 
this  See  commences  some  time  before  this.     As  early  as  A.  D. 

*Mon.  Angl.  vol.  III.  p.  18S. 

f  Joe.  Furn.  Lib.  Epis.  Brit,  in  Ussli.  Primor.  p.  67. 

iRe^.  Land,  in  Men.  Ang.  vol.  IIL  p.  1S6. 

§  Mai.  \Ve»i.  A.  D.  5S7. 


324  BRITISH  BISHOPRICS. 

448,  Germanus  and  Severus,  two  Bishops  of  Gall,  visited  Brit- 
ain, at  the  request  of  the  British  clergy,  and  while  there  con- 
secrated several  Bishops,  among  whom  was  Dubritius,  the 
first  Archbishop  of  Llandaft',  and  Sampson,  Archbishop  of 
York.  The  Bishops  of  LlandafF,  therefore,  are  properly  the 
successors  of  Theonus  and  Thadioc  *  Consequently,  Dubri- 
tius could  trace  his  succession  through  Germanus  and  the 
Galilean  Bishops,  to  Ephesus,  in  the  same  manner  as  we 
have  seen  the  Bishops  of  Lyons  and  Aries  could  trace  their 
succession  to  the  same  source. 

About  the  same  time,  David  and  Eliud,  also  called  Teliaus, 
and  Paternus,  three  Britons,  visited  Jerusalem,  and  David  was 
there  consecrated  Bishop  of  Meneva  by  the  Patriarch  of  Je- 
rusalem,!  and  A.  D.  519  was  made  Archbishop  of  Wales,  by 
vote  of  a  Synod,  at  which  all  the  British  Bishops  were  pres- 
ent4  He  died  A.  D.  544,§  and  was  so  famous  as  to  be  can- 
onized even  among  the  Saxon  saints.  David  was  succeeded 
by  Eliud, II  and  Eliud  by  Kenoc,  or  Kenev.*[[ 

Dubritius,  Bishop  of  LlandafF,  died  December  18th,  522,** 
and  was  succeeded  by  Teliaus,  who  accompanied  David  to 
Jerusalem.ft  His  successor  was  Odoceus,  consecrated  by 
Theodore,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury4t  The  Patriarchate, 
or  Arch-diocese  of  Meneva,  (St.  David's,)  contained  seven 
Dioceses. §^  Six  of  these  seven  Dioceses,  as  they  now  stand, 
were  formed  between  450  and  600 ;  (1,)  St.  David's,  by  Da- 


*Post.  c.  xxviii.     Ann.  448. 

t  Vita  a  Giraldo  Cambrensi,  in  Ussh.  Prim.  474,  528. 

:t  Vila  David,  John  Tinm.  in  Ussh.  Prim.  81.  Still.  Orig.  216.  Girald. 
Camb.  L.  i.  c.  5 ;  L.  ii.  c.  1. 

§  Prina.  Ecc.  Brit.  pp.  76,  82,  526.  ||  Reg.  Llandaff. 

ir  Giraldo  Canibr.  L.  ii.  c.  1.  **  Ussh.  Prim.  526,  527. 

tt  lb.  S3,  84,  528.  44  Reg.  Lland.  and  Rich.  God.  in  loco. 

§§  Bede,  ii.  2.  Hovedon,  Ann.  ii.  454,  5,  and  Walter,  Covent.  A.  D. 
1199.     Galf.  Mon.  i.  c.  12.     Prim.  Brit.  88—92. 


BRITISH  BISHOPRICS. 


325 


vid ;  (2,)  LlandafF,  by  Dubritiiis ;  (3,)  Bangor,  by  Daniel,  the 
origin  of  whose  succession  will  hereafter  be  shown  ;  (4,)  St. 
Asaph's,  about  A.  D.  583,  by  Kentigern,  before  that  time 
Bishop  of  Glasgow,  from  which  he  had  been  driven  by  war  ;* 
(5,)  Hereford,  by  Putta,  also  Bishop  of  Rochester,  659,  and 
translated  to  Hereford,  680. f  The  names  of  the  two  others 
are  uncertain.  The  succession  of  the  Bishops  in  this  Arch- 
bishopric came  through  St.  David  from  Jerusalem ;  through 
Dubritius  from  Gall  and  Ephesus  ;  and  through  Odoceus  from 
Aries  and  Rome.  And  from  them,  these  successions  have  been 
spread  through  the  whole  body  of  English  Bishops.  We 
give  the  succession  of  Episcopal  Governors,  through  whom 
the  consecrators  of  the  several  Bishops  received  their  suc- 
cession, from  Graveson,  Historica  Ecclesiastica.  Tome  9. 


Patriarchs 

OF  Jerusalem. 

Name  of  Bishops. 

A.  D. 

Name  of  Bishops. 

A.D. 

1,  James  Alpheus,  one 

15,  Judas,  (last  Jewish 

of  the  Apostles, 

35. 

Bishop,) 

132. 

2;  Simeon, 

60. 

16,  Marcus,  (first  Gen- 

3, Justus  I., 

107. 

tile  Bishop,) 

134. 

4,  Zacheus, 

111. 

17,  Cassianus, 

146. 

5,  Tobias, 

112. 

18,  Publius, 

154. 

6,  Benjamin, 

117. 

19,  Maximus  I., 

159. 

7,  John, 

119. 

20,  Julian, 

163. 

8,  Matthew, 

121. 

21,  Caius, 

165. 

9,  Philip, 

122. 

22,  Symmachus, 

168. 

10,  Seneca, 

126. 

23,  Caius, 

170. 

11,  Justus  n., 

127. 

24,  Julian, 

173. 

12,  Levi, 

128. 

25,  Maximus  II., 

178. 

13,  Ephraim, 

129. 

26,  Antonius, 

182. 

14,  Joseph, 

131. 

27,  Capito, 

186. 

*  John  Tinm.  Vita,  Ken  tig.             f  Bede,  iv.  2. 

28* 

326 


PATRIARCHS  OF  JERUSALEI 


Name  of  Bishops.       A.  D. 

28,  Valens,  191. 

29,  Dolchianus,  194. 

30,  Narcissus,  (resign- 

ed,) 196. 

31,  Dius,  200. 

32,  Germanio,  207. 

33,  Gordius    and   Nar- 

cissus again,  211. 

34,  Alexander,  237. 

35,  Mazabanes,  251. 

36,  Hymenaeus,  275. 

37,  Zambdas,  298. 

38,  Herman,  300. 

39,  Macarius  I.,  310. 

40,  Maximus  III.,  315. 

41,  Cyril,  (expelled  by 

Arians,)  330. 

42,  Herenius,  350. 
Cyril,  (restored,  de- 
posed again  by  Ari- 
ans,)                        361. 

43,  Hilary,  (an  Arian,)  364. 
Cyril,  (restored  and 

died,)  379. 


Bishops  of  St.  David.     A.  D. 

52,  (1,)  David,  consecra- 

ted by  51st  Patr.  Je- 
rusalem, 519. 

53,  (2,)  Eliud,  544. 

54,  (3,)  Keneva. 

55,  (4,)  Morvael. 

56,  (5,)  Haernurier. 

57,  (6,)  Elvaeth. 


Name  of  Bishops.        A.  D, 

44,  John  n.,  386. 

45,  Praglius,  416. 

46,  Juvenal,  424. 

47,  Anastasius,  458. 

48,  Martyrius,  478. 

49,  Salutis,  486. 

50,  Elias,  494. 

51,  John  III.,  who  con- 

secrated David,      513. 

52,  Peter  Eleutheropo- 

lite,  524. 

53,  Marcarius  II.,  544. 

54,  Eustachius,  552. 

55,  John  IV.,  572. 

56,  Amos,  574—601. 

57,  Isichius,    or    Isaa- 

cius,  601. 

58,  Zacharius,  609. 

59,  Modestus,  631. 

60,  Sophronius,  633—637. 
When  Jerusalem  was  taken 
by  the  Saracens,  and  the 
Patriarchate  broken  up. 


Bishops  of  Llandaff.  A.  D. 
(1,)  Dubritius,  conse- 
crated by  Germanus, 
of  Auxerre,  Lupus, 
of  Tricasse,  etc.     448. 
(2,)  Teliaus. 
40,  (3,)  Odoceus,  conse- 
crated by  Theodore, 
of  Canterbury. 


BISHOPS  OF  ST.  David's  and  llandaff. 


327 


Bishops  of  St.  David.      A.  D. 

58,  (7,)  Gurnel. 

59,  (8,)  Lendywyth,       712. 

60,  (9,)  Gornwist. 

61,  (10,)  Gorwan. 

62,  (11,)  Cledauke. 

63,  (12,)  Enyaen. 

64,  (13,)  Eludgaeth. 

65,  (14,)  Eldimen. 

66,  (15,)  Elvaoth. 

67,  (16,)  Maelscwyth. 

68,  (17,)  Madenew. 

69,  (18,)  Catulus,  841. 

70,  (19,)  Silvay,  850. 

71,  (20,)  Navnis,  873. 

72,  (21,)  Sathveni. 

73,  (22,)  Diothwall. 

74,  (23,)  Asser,  906. 

75,  (24,)  Athvael. 

76,  (25,)  Sampson,  (last 

Archbishop,)  910. 

77,  (26,)  Ruelin. 

78,  (27,)  Rodherch. 

79,  (28,)  Elguni. 

80,  (29,)  Llywarch. 

81,  (30,)  Nergu. 

82,  (31,)  Silhidw,  924. 

83,  (32,)  Everu,  942. 

84,  (33,)  Morgenai,  944. 

85,  (34,)  Nathan. 

86,  (35,)  Roderick. 

87,  (36,)  Jevan. 

88,  (37,)  Argustel. 

89,  (38,)  Morgenneth,     1023. 


Bishops  of  Llandaff.    A.  D. 

41,  (4,)  Ubilwin. 

42,  (5,)  Aidan,  720. 

43,  (6,)  Elgistil. 

44,  (7,)  Lunapejus. 

45,  (8,)  Cormergen. 

46,  (9,)  Argwistil. 

47,  (10,)  Gurvan. 

48,  (11,)  Guodlin. 

49,  (12,)  Edilbin. 

50,  (13,)  Grecielus. 

51,  (14,)  Berthygwyn. 

52,  (15,)  Trychean. 

53,  (16,)  Elvogus. 

54,  (17,)  Catgwaret. 

55,  (18,)  Careuhir. 

56,  (19,)  Nobis. 

57,  (20,)  Guilfrid. 

58,  (21,)  Nudd. 

59,  (22,)  Cimelianc. 

60,  (23,)  Libian,  929. 

61,  (24,)  Marchluith. 

62,  (25,)  Paternus. 

63,  (26,)  Roderick. 

64,  (27,)  Gogwan,  982. 

65,  (28,)  Bledri,  993. 

66,  (29,)  Joseph,  1022. 

67,  (30,)  Herewald,        1059. 
Vacancy  four  years. 

68,  (31,)  Urban,  1108. 

69,  (32,)  Uchtryd,  1139. 

70,  (33,)  Galfrid,  1148. 

71,  (34,)  Nich.  ab  Gwrgant. 

Vacancy  ten  years. 


328 


BISHOPS  OF  ST.  David's  and  llandaff. 


Bishops  of  St.  David.     A.  D. 

90,  (39,)  Ervyn,  1039. 

91,  (40,)  Tramerin,       1028. 

92,  (41,)  Joseph,  1055. 

93,  (42,)  Bleitherd,       1061. 

94,  (43,)  Sulghein,  re- 
signed, 1070. 

95,  (44,)  Abraham,        1076. 
Sulghein  again,  re- 
signed, 1076. 

96,  (45,)  Rythmarch. 

97,  (46,)  Wilfrid. 

98,  (47,)  Bernard,conse- 
crated  by  Archbish- 
op of  Canterbury. 

99,  (48,)  David  Fitz-Gerald. 

100,  (49,)  Peter  de  Leia. 

101,  (50,)  Galfrid,  1198. 
102,(51,)  GiraldCamb.,1199. 

103,  (52,)  Geofrey,         1203. 

104,  (53,)  Jorweth,         1214. 

105,  (54,)  Anselm,  1230. 

106,  (55,)  T.  Wallensis,  1248. 

107,  (56,)  R.deCarreu,1256. 

108,  (57,)  T.  Becke,      1280. 

109,  (58,)  D.  Martin,      1293. 

110,  (59,)  H.  Gower,     1328. 
111,(60,)  J.  Thoresby,  1347. 

112,  (61,) -R.  Brian,        1349. 

113,  (62,)  T.  Falstaflf,     1353. 

114,  (63,)  A.  Houghton,  1361. 

115,  (64,)  J.Gilbert,       1389. 
Vacancy  four  years. 

116,  (65,)  Guyde  Mona,1401. 


Bishops  of  Llandaff.    A.  D. 

72, 

(35,)  W.  de  Saltmarsh. 

73, 

(36,)  Henry,            1199. 

74, 

(37,)  William,         1219. 

75, 

(38,)E.deRadnor,1230. 

Vacancy  four  years. 

76, 

(39,)  W.de  Burgh,  1244. 

77, 

(40,)  J.delaWare,1253. 

78, 

(41,)  W.deRadnor,1256. 

79, 

(42,)  W.de  Braos,  1266. 

80, 

(43,)  J.  Monmouth,  1296. 

81, 

(44,)  J.Eaglesclifi;i323. 

82, 

(45,)  J.  Paschall,    1347. 

83, 

(46,)  R.Craddock,  1361. 

84, 

(47,)  T.  Rushook,  1383. 

85, 

(48,)W.Bottleshaml386. 

86, 

(49,)E.Broomfield,1389. 

87, 

(50,)T.Winchcombl393. 

88, 

(51,)  A.  Barrett,     1395. 

89, 

(52,)  J.  BurghiU,     1396. 

90, 

(53,)  T.  Peverell,  1398. 

91, 

(54,)  J.  la  Zouch,    1408. 

92, 

(55,)  John  Wells,  1425. 

93, 

(56,)  N.  Ashley,     1441. 

94, 

(57,)  J.  Hunden,     1458. 

95, 

(58,)  John  Smith,  1476. 

96, 

(59,)  J.  Marshall,    1478. 

97, 

(60,)  J.  Ingleby,      1496. 

98, 

(61,)  M.  Salley,      1500. 

99, 

(62,)G.deAthequa,1516. 

100, 

(63,)  R.  Holgate,    1537. 

101, 

(64,)  A.  Kitchen,    1545. 

BISHOPS  OF  ST.  David's  and  llandaff.  329 

Bishops  of  St.  David.       A.  D.  Bishops  of  Llandaff.    A.D. 

117,  {QQ,)  H.  Cliichely,1408. 

118,  (67,)  J.  Ketterich,  1414. 

119,  (68,)S.Patrington,1415. 

120,  (69,)  B.  Nichols,    1418. 

121,  (70,)  T.  Radbone,  1433. 

122,  (71,)  W.  Lmwoocl,1442. 

123,  (72,)  J.  Langton,     1447. 

124,  (73,)  J.  Delabere,   1447. 

125,  (74,)  R.  Tully,        1460. 

126,  (75,)  R.  Martin,      1482. 

127,  (76,)  T.  Langton,   1483. 

128,  (77,)  Hugh  Parry,  1485. 

129,  (78,)  J.  Morgan,     1496. 

130,  (79,)R.Sherbourne,1505. 

131,  (80,)  E.  Vaughan,  1509. 

132,  (81,)  R.  Rawlins,   1523. 

133,  (82,)  W.  Barlow,    1536. 

134,  (83,)  R.  Fenner,     1548. 

135,  (84,)  H.  Morgan,    1553. 

This  brings  us  down  to  the  Reformation,  since  which 
time,  the  English  succession  comes  through  Matthew  Parker, 
and  his  associates. 

We  see,  from  the  foregoing,  how  the  Bishops  in  these  sev- 
eral Dioceses  traced  their  succession,  and  that  they  could 
trace  it  to  Jerusalem,  to  Rome,  and  to  Ephesus.  Now  the 
early  Bishops  of  these  Dioceses  were  instrumental  to  a  very 
great  extent  in  preaching  Christianity  to  the  Saxons,  in  the 
West  and  North  of  England.  Thus  the  counties  of  Ches- 
ter, Nottingham,  Derby,  Stafford,  Salop,  Northampton,  Leices- 
ter, Lincoln,  Huntingdon,  Rutland,  Warwick,  Worcester,  Ox- 
ford, Gloucester,  Buckingham,  Bedford,  Hereford,  and  part 
of  Hertford,  were    converted  by  Finnan,   Diuma,  Ceollach, 


330  ARCHBISHOPRIC   OF   YORK. 

and  Trumhere,  Irish  and  British  Bishops.*  York,  Lancaster, 
and  most  of  the  northern  parts  of  England,  by  Aidan,  a  Bish- 
op from  the  Monastery  of  Columbkill,  in  the  island  of  Hii, 
or  lona,  originally,  we  believe,  a  part  of  the  Diocese  of 
Sodor  and  Mann  ;t  and  Essex  and  Middlesex, by  Cedd,  another 
Irish  or  British  Bishop. ;{:  These  Bishops  founded  several 
Dioceses,  which  of  course  trace  their  original  succession  to 
British  Bishops,  and  in  most  cases,  to  the  Archbishops  of  St. 
David's  and  Armagh. 

The  Arch-Diocese  of  York  originally  included  the  Dio- 
ceses of  York,  Lindisfarne,  now  Durham,  Sodor  and  Mann, 
Hexham,  now  extinct,  and  all  the  Bishoprics  of  Scotland, 
until  1466. §  The  first  Archbishop  of  the  Saxons  was  Pauli- 
nus,  consecrated  by  Augustine  of  Canterbury.  ||  The  second 
was  Cedd,  a  British  Bishop,  for  three  years,T[  who  resigned 
and  was  appointed  Bishop  of  Lichfield  and  Coventry.  He 
was  succeeded  by  Wilfrid,  who  was  consecrated  by  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Paris,  eleven  other  Bishops  assisting  him.**  The 
Bishops  who  assisted  in  the  consecration  of  Bishops  in  the 
province  of  York,  traced  their  succession  to  the  British  Bish- 
ops, as  Aidan,  Finnan,  and  Coleman,  were  ordained  by  the 
Bishops  in  the  Island  of  Hii,  or  Scottish  Bishops  who  re- 
ceived their  succession  from  Palladius.ft  There  is  every 
reason  to  suppose,  however,  that  those  Bishops  who  were 
ordained  by  Palladius,  could  also  trace  their  succession  to  the 
British  Bishops,  as  they  must  have  assisted  in  the  consecra- 
tion of  the  Scottish  Bishops. 


*  Bede,  Hist.  L.  ii.  cc.  19,  20,  21. 

t  Beile,  Hisl.  L.  iii.  cc  3,  4,  5,  6,  17.  ^  Bede,  L.  iii.  c.  22. 

$  Patr.  Brit.  p.  82.  ||  Bede,  ii.  9. 

IT  Bede,  ii.  28.     Uiip.  Hist.  Ecc.  Script.  Cent.  viii.  p.  128. 

*♦  Bede,  iii.  28.    Diip.  Ecc.  Script.  Cent.  viii.  p.  128. 

ff  Ussli.  Primordia.  c.  15. 


ARCHBISHOPS  OF   YORK. 


331 


Archbishops  of  York.    A.  D. 

1,  Paulinus,         625—644. 
Vacancy  twenty  years. 

2,  Cedd,  664. 

3,  Wilfrid  I.,  669. 

4,  Bosa,  677. 

5,  St.  John,  of  Beverly,692. 

6,  Wilfrid  II.,  718. 

7,  Egbert,  730. 

8,  Albert,  767. 

9,  Ethelred,  780. 

10,  Eanbald,  797. 

11,  Wulsius,  812. 

12,  Wimundus,  830. 
]  3,  Wilferus,                    854. 

14,  Ethelbald,  895. 

15,  Redwardus,  921. 

16,  Wulstanl.,  941. 

17,  Oskitel,  955. 

18,  Athelwold,resigned,971. 

19,  Oswald,  971. 

20,  Ethelred  II.,  993. 

21,  Wulstan  II.,  1002. 

22,  Alfric  Puttock,        1023. 

23,  Kinsius,  1050. 

24,  Aldred,  1061. 

25,  Thomas  I.,  1070. 

26,  Gerard,  1100. 

27,  Thomas  II.,  1109. 

28,  Thurstan,  1114. 

29,  William(deprived,)1144. 

30,  Henry  Murdac,       1147. 
St.  William,  restored,  1153. 


31,  Roger, 


1154. 


Archbisliops  of  York.         A.  D. 
Vacancy  ten  years. 

32,  GeofFryPlantagenet,l  191 . 
Vacancy  four  years. 

33,  Walter  de  Grey,      1216. 

34,  Sewall,  1255. 

35,  GeoffrydeLudham,1258. 

36,  Walter  GifTard,        1265. 

37,  Wm.  Wickwane,     1279. 

38,  John  Le  Romaine,  1285. 

39,  Hen.  de  Newark,     1296. 

40,  Thos.  Corbridge,     1299. 

41,  VVm.  de  Greenfield,  1303. 

42,  Wm.  de  Melton,      1316. 

43,  Wm.  de  Lazouch,    1340. 

44,  John  Thoresby,        1354. 

45,  Alex.  Neville,  1374. 

46,  Thos.  Arundel,         1388. 

47,  Robert  Waldby,       1307. 

48,  Rich.  Scrope,  1398. 

49,  Henry  Bowet,         1407. 

50,  John  Kemp,  1426. 

51,  Wm.  Boothe,  1452. 

52,  Geo.  Neville,  1465. 

53,  Laurence  Boothe,   1476. 

54,  Thos.  deRatherani, 

or  Scott,  1480. 

55,  Thos.  Savage,         1508. 

56,  Chris.  Bainbridge,   1508. 

57,  Thomas  Walsey,     1514. 

58,  Edward  Lee,  1531. 

59,  Robert  Holgate,      1544. 

60,  Nicholas  Heath,      1555. 

6 1 ,  Thomas  Young,       1 560. 


332 


ARCHBISHOPS  OF  YORK. 


uirchbishops  of  York.    A.  D. 

62,  Edmund  Grindal,   1570. 

63,  Edwin  Sandes,       1576. 

64,  John  Piers,  1588. 

65,  Mat.  Hutton,  1594. 

66,  Tobias  :\Iatthe\v,    1606. 

67,  Geo.  Monteigne,     1618. 

68,  Sam.  Harsnet,         1628. 

69,  Richard  Xeyle,      1632. 

70,  John  Williams,       1641. 
Cromwell,  vacancy  10  years. 

71,  Accepted  Freewen, 1660. 

72,  Richard  Sterae,       1664. 


Archbishops  of  York. 

AD. 

73,  John  Dolben, 

1683. 

74,  Thos.  Lamplugh, 

1688. 

75,  John  Sharp, 

1591. 

76,  Sir  Wm.  Dawes, 

Bart., 

1714. 

77,  Laun.  Blackburne, 

,  1724. 

78,  Thomas  Herring, 

1745. 

79,  ^lat.  Hutton, 

1747. 

80,  John  Gilbert, 

1757. 

81,  Rob.  Drummond, 

1761. 

82,  Wm.  ■Nlarkham, 

1777. 

83,  Edward  Harcourt, 

1808. 

CHAPTER  XXV. 

SUCCESSION    OF    THE    SCOTTISH,    AMERICAN,    AND    IRISH 
CHURCHES. 

It  has  been  remarked,  that  our  line  of  the  succession  of  the 
American  Church  came  through  that  of  Scotland.  This  was 
also  derived  from  the  English  succession,  December  15,  1661, 
when  Gilbert  Sheldon,  Bishop  of  London,  assisted  by  George 
Morley,  Bishop  of  Worcester,  Richard  Sterne,  Bishop  of  Car- 
lisle, and  Hugh  Lloyd,  Bishop  of  Llandalf,  consecrated  An- 
drew FairfuU,  to  the  Diocese  of  Glasgow ;  John  Sharpe,  to 
the  Diocese  of  St.  Andrews  ;  Robert  Leighton,  to  the  Diocese 
of  Dumblane,  (translated  to  Glasgow,  1671  ;)  and  James 
Hamilton,  to  the  Diocese  of  Galloway.*  These  consecrated 
other  Bishops,  but  the  original  records  are  either  lost  or  de- 


•Jux.  Reg.  237. 


BISHOPS  OF  THE  SCOTTISH   CHURCH. 


333 


stroyed,  until  1705.  Again,  February  24,  1693,  the  Bishops 
of  Peterborough,  Norwich,  and  Ely,  consecrated  George 
Hickes,  a  Bishop  of  Scotland.  The  Scottish  succession  is 
as  follows  : 


Name  of  Bishops. 

Diocese. 

Date. 

1,  James  Sharpe, 

St.  Andrews, 

Dec.  15 

,  1661. 

2,  Andrew  Fairfull, 

Glasgow, 

<< 

ii 

3,  Robert  Leighton, 

Dumblane, 
Glasgow,  167L 

<i 

u 

4,  James  HamiUon, 

Galloway, 

11 

ii 

5,  George  Haliburton, 

Dunkeld, 

May  7, 

1662. 

6,  Murdoch  McKenzie, 

Moray, 

ii 

a 

7,  David  Strachan, 

Brechin, 

K 

ii 

8,  John  Patterson, 

Ross, 

(( 

i( 

9,  David  Fletcher, 

Argyle, 

« 

it 

10,  Robert  Wallace, 

The  Isles, 

« 

a 

11,  George  Wishart, 

Edinborough, 

June  1, 

,  1662. 

12,  David  Mitchel, 

Aberdeen, 

i( 

(( 

13,  Patrick  Forbes, 

Caithness, 

ii 

(( 

14,  Alexander  Burnet, 

Aberdeen, 

1663, 

((                   <( 

Glasgow,  1664. 

ii                         a 

St.  Andrews,  1679. 

15,  Patrick  Scougal, 

Aberdeen, 

Easter, 

1664. 

16,  Andrew  Honyman, 

Orkney, 

1664. 

17,  Henry  Guthrie, 

Dunkeld, 

1665, 

18,  William  Scrogie, 

Argyle, 

1666. 

19,  Alexander  Young, 

Edinburgh, 
Ross,  1679. 

1671. 

20,  James  Ramsey, 

Dumblane, 
Ross,  1684, 

1673. 

21,  John  Patterson, 

Galloway, 

1674. 

it              << 

Edinborough,  1679. 

u                 u 

Glasgow,  1687. 

29 


334 


BISHOPS  OF  THE   SCOTTISH   CHURCH. 


Name  of  Bishops. 

Diocese. 

Date. 

22,  Arthur  Ross, 

Argyle, 

Apr.  28, 

1675. 

((          (( 

Galloway,  1679. 

((                 u 

Glasgow,  1679. 

«(               (( 

St.  Andrews,  1684. 

23,  Robert  Laurie, 

Brechin, 

1676. 

24,  William  Lindsay, 

Dunkeld, 

May  1, 

1677. 

25,  James  Aitkins, 

Moray, 

1677. 

((            (( 

Galloway,  1680. 

26,  Andrew  Wood, 

The  Isles, 

1678. 

U                            (( 

Caithness,  1680. 

27,  George  Haliburton, 

Brechin, 

1678. 

((                (( 

Aberdeen,  1682. 

28,  Andrew  Bruce, 

Dunkeld, 

1679. 

((             (( 

Orkney,  1688. 

29,  Colin  Falconer, 

Argyle, 

Sept.  5, 

1679. 

((           (( 

Moray,  1680. 

30,  Hoctor  McLean, 

Argyle, 

1680. 

31,  Archibald  Graham, 

The  Isles, 

1680. 

32,  Robert  Douglas, 

Brechin,  1682. 

((              (( 

Dumblane,  1684. 

33,  Alexander  Cairncross 

,  Brechin, 

1684. 

((                  (( 

Glasgow,  1684. 

34,  James  Drummond, 

Brechin, 

Dec.  25 

, 1684. 

35,  Alexander  Rose, 

Moray, 

1686. 

«(              (( 

Edinborough,  1687 

36,  John  Hamilton, 

Dunkeld, 

Oct.  19, 

,  1688. 

37,  William  Hay, 

Moray, 

1687. 

38,  John  Gordon, 

Galloway, 

Sept.  4, 

1688. 

Consecrators. 

39,  John  Fullarton, 

Jan.  25,  1705. 

40,  John  Sage, 

John  Glasgow,  21 

Alex.  Edinburgh,  35. 
Robert  Dumblane,  32. 


BISHOPS  OF  THE  SCOTTISH   CHURCH. 


335 


Name  of  Bishops.  Diocese. 

41,  John  Falconer, 


42,  Archibald  Campbell, 


43,  James  Gadderar, 


44,  Arthur  Miller, 

45,  William  Irvine, 


46,  David  Freebairn, 

47,  Andrew  Cant, 


48,  Alexander  Duncan, 


49,  Thomas  Rattray,       Dunkeld, 


50,  William  Dunbar,        Moray, 

51,  Robert  Keith,  Caithness, 


Consecrators. 

April  28,  1709. 
Alex.  Edinburgh,  35. 
Robert  Dumblane,  32. 
John  Sage,  40. 

Aug.  24,  1711. 
Alex.  Edinburgh,  35 
Robert  Dumblane,  32. 
John  Falconer,  41. 

Feb.  24,  1712. 
George  Hickes,  p.  333. 
John  Falconer,  41. 
Archibald  Campbell,  42. 

Oct.  22,  1718. 
Alex.  Edinburgh,  35. 
John  Fullarton,  39. 
John  Falconer,  41. 

Oct.  17,  1722. 
John  Falconer,  39. 
Arthur  Miller,  44. 
William  Irvine,  45. 

1724. 
John  Falconer,  39. 
William  Irvine,  45. 
Arthur  Miller,  44. 

June  4,  1727. 
James  Gadderar,  43. 
Alexander  Duncan,  48. 
Andrew  Cant,  47. 

June  18,  1727. 
James  Gadderar,  43. 
Arthur  Miller,  44. 
Thomas  Rattray,  49. 


336 


BISHOPS  OF  THE  SCOTTISH  CHURCH. 


Name  of  Bishops. 
52,  Robert  White, 


53,  William  Falconer,     Caithness, 


54,  James  Rait, 


55,  John  Alexander, 


56,  Andrew  Gerard, 


57,  Robert  Forbes. 


58,  Robert  Kilgour, 


59,  Charles  Rose, 


Diocese.  Consecrators. 

Dumblane,       June  24,  1735. 

Thomas  Rattray,  49. 

Robert  Keith,  51. 

William  Dunbar,  5Q. 
Sept.  10,  1741. 

Thomas  Rattray,  49. 

Robert  Keith,  51. 

Robert  White,  52. 
Brechin,  Oct.  4,  1742. 

Thomas  Rattray,  49. 

Robert  Keith,  51. 

Robert  White,  52. 
Dunkeld,         Aug.  9,  1743. 

Robert  Keith,  51. 

Robert  White,  52. 

William  Falconer,  53. 

James  Rait,  54, 
Aberdeen,       July  17,  1747. 

Robert  White,  52. 

William  Falconer,  53. 

James  Rait,  54. 

John  Alexander,  55. 
Ross  and  Caithness,  June  24,  1762. 

William  Falconer,  53. 

J.  Alexander,  55. 

A.  Gerard,  56. 
Aberdeen,       Sept.  21,  1768. 

Wm.  Falconer,  53. 

J.  Rait,  54. 

R.  Forbes,  57. 
Dumblane,      Aug.  24,  1774. 

Wm.  Falconer,  53. 

J.  Rait,  54. 

R.  Forbes,  57. 


BISHOPS  OF  THE  SCOTTISH  CHURCH. 


337 


Name  of  Bishops. 
60,  Arthur  Petrie, 


61,  John  Skinner, 


Samuel  Seabury, 


Diocese.  Consecrators, 

Moray,  June  27,  1777. 

Wm.  Falconer,  53. 

J.  Rait,  54. 

R.  Kilgour,  58. 

C.  Rose,  59. 
Aberdeen,        Sept.  25,  1782. 

R.  Kilgour,  58. 

C.  Rose,  59. 

A.  Petrie,  60. 
Connecticut,     Nov.  14,  1784. 

Robert  Kilgour,  58. 

Arthur  Petrie,  60. 

John  Skinner,  61. 


Succession  of  Bishops  in  the  American  Church. 

1,  Samuel  Seabury,        Conn,  and  R.  I.,     Nov.  14,  1784. 

Scottish  Bishops. 

Robert  Kilgour,  58. 
Arthur  Petrie,  60. 
John  Skinner,  61. 

2,  William  White,  119  from  St.  John,  (86)  from  Augustin. 

Pennsylvania,    Feb.  4,  1787. 


John  Moore,  96. 
William  Markham,  94. 
Charles  Moss,  91. 
John  Hinchliffe,  93. 
3,  Samuel  Provoost,      New  York,    Feb.  4,  1787. 

John  Moore,  96. 
William  Markham,  94. 
Charles  Moss,  91. 
John  Hinchliffe,  93. 
29* 


338  BISHOPS  OF  THE  AMERICAN  CHURCH. 

Name  of  Bishops.  Diocese.  Consecrators. 

4,  James  Madison,         Virginia,     Sept.  19,  1790. 

John  Moore,  96. 
Beilby  Porteus,  97. 
John  Thomas,  95. 

5,  Thomas  J.  Clagget,  Maryland,     Sept.  17,  1792. 

American  Bishops. 
Samuel  Provoost,  3. 
Samuel  Seabury,  1. 
William  White,  2. 
James  Madison,  4. 

6,  Robert  Smith,  South  Carolina,     Sept.  13,  1795. 

William  White,  2. 
Samuel  Provoost,  3. 
James  Madison,  4. 
Thomas  J.  Clagget,  5. 

7,  Edward  Bass,  Massachusetts,     May  7,  1797. 

William  White,  2. 
Samuel  Provoost,  3. 
Thomas  J.  Claggett,  5. 

8,  Abraham  Jar  vis,  Connecticut,    Oct.  18,  1797. 

William  White,  2. 
Samuel  Provoost,  3. 
Edward  Bass,  7. 

9,  Benjamin  Moore,        New  York,  Sept.  11,  1801. 

William  White,  2. 
Thomas  J.  Claggett,  5. 
Abraham  Jarvis,  8. 
10,  Samuel  Parker,  Massachusetts,     Sept.  14,  1804, 

William  White,  2. 
Thomas  J.  Claggett,  5. 
Abraham  Jarvis,  8. 
Benjamin  Moore,  9. 


BISHOPS  OF  THE  AMERICAN  CHURCH. 


339 


Name  of  Bishops. 

11,  John  H.  Hobart, 

12,  Alex.  V.  Griswold, 


13,  Theodore  Dehon, 


14,  Richard  C.  Moore, 


15,  James  Kemp, 


16,  John  Croes, 


17,  Nathaniel  Bowen, 


18,  Philander  Chase, 
Illinois,  1831. 


Diocese.  Consecrators. 

New  York,     May  29,  1811. 
Eastern  Diocese,     May  29,  1811. 

William  White,  2. 
Samuel  Provoost,  3. 

Abraham  Jarvis,  8. 
South  Carolina,     Oct.  15,  1812. 

William  White,  2. 

Abraham  Jarvis,  8. 

John  H.  Hobart,  11. 
Virginia,     May  18,  1814. 

William  White,  2. 

John  H.  Hobart,  11. 

Alexander  V.  Griswold,  12= 

Theodore  Dehon,  13. 
Maryland,     Sept.  1,  1814. 

William  White,  2. 

John  H.  Hobart,  11. 

Richard  C.  Moore,  14. 
New  Jersey,     Nov.  19, 1815. 

William  White,  2. 

John  H.  Hobart,  11. 

James  Kemp,  15. 
South  Carolina,     Oct.  8,  1818. 

William  White,  3. 

John  H.  Hobart,  11. 

James  Kemp,  15. 

John  Croes,  16. 
Ohio,  Feb.  11,1819. 

William  White,  2. 

John  H.  Hobart,  11. 

James  Kemp,  15. 

John  Croes,  16. 


340  BISHOPS  OF  THE   AMERICAN  CHURCH. 

Name  of  Bishops.  Diocese.  Consecrators. 

19,  Thomas  C.  Brownell,  Connecticut,     Oct.  27,  1819. 

William  White,  2. 
John  H.  Hobart,  11. 
Alex.  V.  Griswold,  12. 

20,  John  S.  Ravenscroft,    North  Carolina,     May  22,  1823. 

William  White,  2. 
Alexander  V.  Griswold,  12. 
James  Kemp,  15. 
John  Croes,  16. 
Nathaniel  Bowen,  17. 
Thomas  C.  Brownell,  19. 

21,  Henry  U.  Onderdonk, Pennsylvania,     Oct.  25,  1827. 

William  White,  2. 
John  H.  Hobart,  11. 
James  Kemp,  15. 
John  Croes,  16. 
Nathaniel  Bowen,  17. 

22,  William  Meade,  Virginia,     August  19,  1829. 

William  White,  2. 
JohnH.  Hobart,  11. 
Alexander  V.  Griswold,  12. 
Richard  C.  Moore,  14. 
John  Croes,  16. 
Thomas  C.  Brownell,  1 9. 
Henry  U.  Onderdonk,  21. 

23,  William  M.  Stone,      Maryland,     Oct.  21,  1830. 

William  White,  2. 
Richard  C.  Moore,  14. 
Henry  U.  Onderdonk,  21. 
William  Meade,  22. 

24,  Benj.  T.  Onderdonk,  New  York,     Nov.  26,  1830. 

William  White,  2. 
Thomas  C.  Brownell,  19. 
4-  Henry  U.  Onderdonk,  21. 


BISHOPS  OF  THE  AMERICAN  CHURCH. 


241 


Name  of  Bishoj 
25,  Levi  S.  Ives, 


26,  John  H.  Hopkins, 


27,  Benjamin  B.  Smith, 


28,  Charles  P.  M'llvaine,  Ohio 


29,  George  W.  Doane, 


30,  James  H.  Otey, 


31,  Jackson  Kemper, 


Diocese.  Consecrators. 

North  Carolina,     Sept.  22, 1831. 

William  White,  2. 

Henry  U.  Onderdonk,  21. 

Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,  24. 
Vermont,     Oct.  31,  1832. 

William  White,  2. 

Alexander  V.  Griswold,  12. 

Nathaniel  Bowen,  17. 
Kentucky,     Oct.  31,  1832. 

William  White,  2. 

Thomas  C.  Brownell,  19. 

Henry  U.  Onderdonk,  21. 
Oct.  31,  1832. 

William  White,  2. 

Alexander  V.  Grisw^old,  12. 

William  Meade,  22. 
New  Jersey,     Oct.  31,  1832. 

William  White,  2. 

Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,24. 

Levi  S.  Ives,  25. 
Tennessee,     Jan.  14,  1834. 

William  White,  2. 

Henry  U.  Onderdonk,  21. 

Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,24. 

George  W.  Doane,  29. 
Missouri  andlnd.,     Sept.  25,  1835. 

William  White,  2. 

Richard  C.  Moore,  14. 

Philander  Chase,  18. 

Henry  U.  Onderdonk,  21. 

Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,24. 

Benjamin  B.  Smith,  27. 

George  W.  Doane,  29. 


342  BISHOPS  OF  THE  AMERICAN  CHURCH. 

Name  of  Bishops.  Diocese.  Consecr atom's. 

32,  Samuel  A.  McCoskry,  Michigan,     July  7,  1 836. 

Henry  U.  Onderdonk,  21. 
George  W.  Doane,  29. 
Jackson  Kemper,  31. 

33,  Leonidas  Polk,  Arkansas,     Dec.  9,  1838. 

Louisiana,  1841.  William  Meade,  22. 

Benjamin  B.  Smith,  27. 
Charles  P.  M'llvaine,  28. 
James  H.  Otey,  30. 

34,  Wm.  H.  De  Lancey,  Western  New  York,  May  9,  1839. 

Alexander  V.  Griswold,  12. 
•  Henry  U.  Onderdonk,  21. 

Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,24. 
George  W.  Doane,  29. 

35,  Chris.  E.  Gadsden,     South  Carolina,     June  21, 1840. 

Alexander  V.  Griswold,  12. 
George  W.  Doane,  29. 
Samuel  A.  McCoskry,  32. 

36,  Wra.  R.  Whittingham,  Maryland,     Sept.  17,  1840. 

Alexander  V.  Griswold,  12. 
Richard  C.  Moore,  14. 
Benjamin  T.  Onderdonk,24. 
George  W.  Doane,  29. 

37,  Stephen  Elliott,  Georgia,     Feb.  28,  1841. 

William  Meade,  22. 
Levi  S.  Ives,  25. 
Christopher  E.Gadsden,35. 

38,  Alfred  Lee,  Delaware,     Oct.  12,  1841. 

Alexander  v.. Griswold,  12. 
Richard  C.  Moore,  14. 
Philander  Chase,  18. 
Thomas  C.  Brownell,  19. 
Henry  U.  Onderdonk,  21. 


FOUNDATION  OF  IRISH   EPISCOPATE.  343 

We  have  explained  in  the  preceding  chapters,  the  na- 
ture of  the  Apostolic  succession,  as  held  by  the  Episcopal 
Church  in  England  and  America,  and  shown  from  what  sources 
it  has  been  derived  ;  and  having  carefully  traced  it  back  to  the 
Apostles,  through  all  those  times  of  peril  when  it  was  in  dan- 
ger, we  might  leave  the  subject.  But  as  mention  has  been 
made  of  Irish  and  Romish  Bishops,  we  shall  show  from 
whence  the  Irish  derived  their  succession,  and  how  both  can 
trace  it.  In  the  earliest  ages  of  Christianity,  Ireland  had  its 
Bishops  from  England  or  Scotland ;  but  about  433,  Patrick 
was  consecrated  Archbishop  of  Armagh,  by  the  Bishop  of 
Rome.*  He  established  several  Sees,  and  with  the  assist- 
ance of  others  consecrated  Bishops  for  them  ;  as.  Ere,  Bishop 
of  Slane  ;t  Senach,  Bishop  of  Uamali  ;J  Bron,  Bishop  of  Sli- 
go,  441  ;§  Mochthe,  Bishop  of  Louth,  443,  if  he  was  not  a 
Bishop  before,  which  seems  probable.  ||  He  also  founded  the 
See  of  Clogher,  the  same  year,  and  governed  it  awhile  him- 
self, but  subsequently  conferred  it  upon  McMartin.K  In  the 
year  445,  he  founded  the  Arch-Episcopal  See  of  Armagh,  and 
governed  it  till  455,  when  he  promoted  Benignus  to  the  Epis- 
copate, who  resigned  it,  and  was  succeeded  by  Jarlath,  465.** 
A.  D.  447  he  consecrated  Germanus,  Bis'iop  of  Sodor  and 
Mann,tt  and  in  454  he  consecrated  Mael,  Bishop  of  Ar- 
dagh.|;}:  From  these,  the  subsequent  Bishops  of  Ireland  traced 
their  succession  through  the  Archbishops  of  Armagh.  We 
give  the  list  from  Ussher's  Primordia ;  Glover's  Patriarchate 
of  Britain,  London,  1839  ;  and  the  Chronological  Table  of  the 
Archbishops  of  Armagh,  appended  to  the  Life  of  St.  Patrick. 


*  Life  of  Pat.  p.  67. 

Ussher,  Prim.  Brit.  c.  18. 

Opusc.  Patri.  by  James 

Ware,  Lond.  1656. 

%  Life,  p.  73. 

:tP.  78.                  §P.  79. 

IIP.  81. 

ITP.  8L 

**P.  82.                ttP.  83. 

ttP.88. 

344: 


LIST  OF  THE  ARCHBISHOPS  OF  ARMAGH. 


Archbishops  of  Armagh. 


Name  of  Bishops.  A.  D. 

1,  Patrick,  consecrated 

by  Celestine, Bishop 

of  Rome,  433. 

2,  Benignus,  455. 

3,  Jarlath,  465. 

4,  Cormac,  482. 

5,  Diibtach  I.,  497. 

6,  Ailild  L,  513. 

7,  Ailild  II.,  526. 

8,  Diibtach  II.,  536. 

9,  David  McGuire,  548. 

10,  Feidlimid,  551. 

11,  Cairlan,  578. 

12,  Eochaid  McDermod,  588. 

13,  Senachiis,  598. 

14,  Mac  Laisir,  610. 

15,  Thomian  McRonan,  623. 

16,  Segene,  661. 

17,  Flan-bebla,  688. 

18,  Suibhny,  715. 

19,  Cognusa,  730. 

20,  Cele-Peter,  750. 

21,  Ferdachry,  758. 

22,  Foendelach,  774. 

23,  Dubdalethy  I.,  778. 

24,  Affiat,  793. 

25,  Cudiniscus,  794. 

26,  Conmach,  798. 

27,  Torlach,  807. 

28,  Nuadd,  808. 


Na7ne  of  Bishops.  A.  T>. 

29,  Flangus  McLoingle,  812. 

30,  Artrigius,  823. 

31,  Eugenius,  833. 

32,  Faranati,  834. 

33,  Diermuid,  848. 

34,  Facthua,  852. 

35,  Ainmire,  874. 

36,  Catasach  I.,  875. 

37,  Maelcob,  883. 

38,  Mael-Brigid,  885. 

39,  Joseph,  927. 

40,  Mael-Patrick,  936. 

41,  Catasach  IL,  937. 

42,  Muredach,  957. 

43,  Dubdalethy  II. ,  966. 

44,  Murechan,  998. 

45,  Maehnury,  1001. 

46,  Amalgaid,  1021. 

47,  Dubdalethy  III.,  1050. 

48,  Cumasach,  1065. 

49,  Melisa,  1065. 

50,  Donald McAmalgaid,l 092. 

51,  Celsus  McAid,  1106. 

52,  Maurice,  1129. 

53,  Malachy  0'Morgair,1134. 

54,  Gelasius,  1137. 

55,  Cornelius,  1174. 

56,  Gilbert  O'Caran,  1 1 75. 

57,  Melisa  O'Carrol,  1184. 

58,  Amlave  O'Murid,  1184. 


ARCHBISPIOPS  OF  ARMAGH. 


345 


Name  of  Bishops.  A.  D. 

59,  Tomas  O'Connor,  1186. 
60,EugeneMcGillivider,  1 206. 

61,  Luke  Netterville,  1220. 

62,  Donat  O'Fidabara,  1227. 

63,  Albert  De  Cologne,  1239. 

64,  Reiner,  1247. 

65,  Abm.  O'Connelan,  1254. 
m,  Pat.  O'Scanlain,  1262. 

67,  Nich.  McMelissa,  1272. 

68,  John  Taaf,  1301. 

69,  Walter  De  Jorse,  1306. 

70,  RolandJorse,  1311. 

71,  Stephen  Segrave,  1332. 

72,  David  O'Hiraghty,  1334. 

73,  Richard  Fitzralph,  1347. 

74,  Milo  Sweetman,  1361. 

75,  John  Colton,  1382. 

76,  Nich.  Fleming,  1404. 

77,  John  Swayne,  1417. 

78,  John  Prene,  1439. 

79,  John  Mey,  1444. 

80,  John  Bole,  1457. 

81,  JohnFoxalls,  1475. 

82,  Edward  Connesburg,l  477. 


Name  of  Bishops.        A-  D. 

83,  OctavusDePalatio,1480. 

84,  John  Kite,  1513. 

85,  George  Cromer,     1522. 

86,  George  Dowdall,    1543. 

87,  Hugh  Goodacre,     1552. 

88,  Adam  Loftus,  1562. 

89,  Thomas  Lancaster,  1768. 

90,  John  Long,  1784. 

91,  John  Garvey,  1585, 

92,  Henry  Ussher,         1595. 

93,  Chris.  Hampton,     1613. 

94,  James  Ussher,         1624. 

95,  John  Bramhall,        1660. 

96,  James  Margetson,  1663. 

97,  Michael  Boyle,       1678. 

98,  Hugh  Boulter,         1702. 

99,  Nar.  Marsh,  1702. 

100,  Thomas  Lindsay,  1713. 

101,  John  Hoadley,         1742. 

102,  George  Stone,        1747. 

103,  Rich.  Ravvhnson,    1765. 

104,  William  Newcome,1795, 

105,  William  Stuart,       1800. 

106,  John  G.  Beresford,1822. 


CHAPTER  XXVL 

SUCCESSIO^f  OF  THE  CHURCH   OF  ROME. 


Owing  to  the  fact  that  Rome   has  been  the   Capital  of  an 
Empire,  since  the  first  preaching  of  Christiatsity,  and  also  the 
30 


346  SUCCESSION  OF  THE  ROMISH   CHURCH. 

seat  of  a  vast  body  of  learned  men,  the  materials  for  tracing 
the  succession  of  that  Church  are  more  full  and  ample  than 
those  of  any  other.  Consequently,  we  can  generally  deter- 
mine the  exact  length  of  the  reign  of  each  Bishop,  and  give 
some  history  of  the  individual  filling  the  Chair.  In  the  early 
periods  of  this  Church,  translations  from  one  See  to  another 
were  not  allowed.  The  first  case  of  a  translation  to  the 
Episcopate  of  Rome,  was  that  of  Formosus,  who  had  been 
Bishop  of  Porto,  translated  to  Rome,  May  4,  891.  Previous 
to  that  time,  all  the  Bishops,  at  the  time  of  their  election, 
were  Priests,  Deacons,  or  Laymen.  Among  them,  Fabian, 
the  nineteenth  Bishop,  and  John  XIX.,  are  known  to  have 
been  Laymen.  Eleven  were  Deacons,  at  the  time  of  their 
election,  and  are  marked  with  a  star  (*)  in  the  following  cata- 
logue. Fifty-one  others  had  been  Bishops  elsewhere,  before 
their  election  to  the  Pontificate.  These  are  marked  with  a 
dagger  (f)  in  the  following  catalogue.  These  Bishops  having 
been  translated  from  nearly  every  part  of  Christendom,  it  may 
safely  be  assumed,  that  nearly  all  the  successions  in  the  world 
enter  into,  and  assist  in  authenticating  that  of  the  Bishops  of 
Rome.  Consequently,  if,  in  one  or  two  instances,  as  some  his- 
torians pretend  to  believe,  the  succession  of  the  Bishop  can 
not  be  traced  historically,  it  would  not  invalidate  at  all  their 
succession. 

In  the  earliest  ages  of  the  Church,  the  names  of  the  Con- 
secrators  were  not  generally  recorded,  nor  the  day  of  the  con- 
secration, the  year  only  being  given.  The  dates  of  the  first 
seventeen  Bishops  are  given  on  the  authority  of  Eusebius ; 
the  subsequent  ones  have  been  compiled  from  Gravesons, 
Historica  Ecclesiastica,  vols.  I. — IX.,  third  edition,  folio  ; 
Baronius,  Annales  Ecclesiastica,  twelve  volumes,  folio,  Ant- 
werp, 1610 — 1629;  Muratori,  Annali  cV Italia,  tweh^e  vol- 
umes, folio,  Genoa,  1773 — 1778;  Lives  of  the  Popes,  by  C. 
W.  F.  Walch,  D.  D.,  Divinity  Professor,  Gottingen,  8vo.  Lon- 


BISHOPS  OF  ROME. 


347 


don,  1759  ;  Bower's  Lives  of  the  Popes,  two  volumes,  quarto, 
London. 


Name, 

Consecrated. 

Died. 

1,  Linus, 

A 

..  D.  67, 

A 

.  D.  79. 

2,  Anacletus, 

79, 

91. 

3,  Clement, 

91, 

100. 

4,  Evaristus, 

100, 

108. 

5,  Alexander, 

108, 

118. 

6,  Sixtus, 

118, 

128. 

7,  Telesphorus, 

128, 

138. 

8,  Hyginus, 

138, 

141. 

9,  Pius, 

141, 

155, 

10,  Anicetus, 

155, 

166. 

11,  Soter, 

166, 

174. 

12,  Eleutherius,* 

174, 

187. 

13,  Victor, 

187, 

198. 

14,  Zephrynus, 

198, 

216. 

15,  Calixtus, 

•216, 

221. 

16,  Urban, 

221, 

229. 

17,  Pontianus, 

229, 

Sept. 

28,  235. 

18,  Anterus, 

Nov. 

21,  235, 

Jan. 

3,  236. 

19,  Fabian, 

Jan. 

11,236, 

Jan. 

20,  250. 

20,  Cornelius, 

May 

24,  251, 

Sept. 

4,  252. 

21,  Lucius  I., 

Sept. 

25,  253, 

March  4,  253. 

22,  Stephen  L, 

May 

10,  255, 

Aug. 

1,  257. 

23,  Sixtus  XL, 

Aug. 

24,  257, 

July 

30,  258. 

24,  Dionysius, 

July 

22,  259, 

Dec. 

26,  269. 

25,  Felix  I, 

Dec. 

28,  269, 

Dec. 

22,  274. 

26,  Eutychianus, 

Jan. 

5,  275, 

Dec. 

7,  283. 

27,  Caius, 

Dec. 

15,  283, 

April 

22,  296. 

28,  Marcellinus, 

June 

30,  296, 

Oct. 

24,  304. 

29,  Marcellus  I., 

June 

27,  308, 

Jan. 

16,  310. 

30,  Eusebius, 

Feb. 

5,  310, 

June 

21,310. 

31,  Miltiades, 

July 

2,  310, 

Jan. 

10,  314. 

348 


BISHOPS  OF  ROME. 


Name. 

Consecrated. 

Died. 

32,  Sylvester  L, 

Jan. 

31,  314, 

Dec. 

31,  335. 

33,  Mark, 

Jan. 

18,  336, 

Oct. 

8,  336. 

34,  Julius  I., 

Feb. 

6,  337, 

April 

12,  352. 

35,  Liberus, 

July 

22,  252, 

Sept. 

23,  366. 

36,  Felix  II,  (Liberus 

living, 

but  having 

been  driven  into 

exile.) 

37,  Damassus  I., 

Oct. 

1,     366, 

Dec. 

10,    384. 

38,  Siricus, 

385, 

398. 

39,  Anastatius  I., 

Dec. 

5,  398, 

Dec. 

14,  401. 

40,  Innocent  I., 

Dec. 

21,402, 

March  12,  417. 

41,  Zosimus, 

March  18,  417, 

Dec. 

26,  418. 

42,  Boniface  I, 

Dec. 

29,  418, 

Sept. 

4,  422. 

43,  Celestine  L, 

Sept. 

10,  422, 

July 

18,  432. 

44,  Sixtus  III.,* 

July 

24,  432, 

Aug. 

11,440. 

45,  Leo  I., 

Sept. 

22,  440, 

Nov. 

4,461. 

46,  Hilary, 

Nov. 

12,461, 

Feb. 

21,  468. 

47,  Simplicius, 

Feb. 

25,  468, 

March    1,  483. 

48,  Felix  III., 

March   6,  483, 

Feb. 

24,  492. 

49,  Gelasius  L, 

March   1,492, 

Nov. 

19,  496. 

50,  Anastatius  II., 

Nov. 

24,  496, 

Nov. 

17,  498. 

51,  Symmachus, 

Nov. 

22,  498, 

July 

19,  514. 

52,  Hormisdas, 

July 

27,  514, 

Aug. 

6,  523. 

53,  John  I., 

Aug. 

13,  523, 

May 

18,  526. 

54,  Felix  IV., 

July 

12,  526, 

Sept. 

18,  530. 

55,  Boniface  II., 

Sept. 

21,  530, 

Oct. 

17,  532. 

56,  John  II., 

Dec. 

31,  532, 

May 

26,  535. 

57,  Agapetus  I., 

June 

3,  535, 

April 

22,  536. 

58,  Silverius, 

June 

8,  536, 

June 

20,  540. 

59,  Vigilius, 

540, 

554. 

60,  Pelagius  I., 

April 

11,  555, 

March  1,  560. 

61,  John  III., 

July 

17,  560, 

July 

13,  573. 

62,  Benedict  L, 

June 

3,  574, 

July 

30,  578. 

63,  Pelagius  II., 

Nov. 

30,  578, 

Feb. 

8,  590. 

BISHOPS  OF  ROME. 

349 

Name. 

Consecrated. 

Died. 

64,  Gregory  I.,* 

Sept. 

3,  590, 

March  12,  604. 

65,  Sabinus,* 

Sept. 

13,  604, 

Feb. 

12,  606. 

66,  Boniface  III. 

Feb. 

8,  606, 

Nov. 

10,  607. 

67,  Boniface  IV., 

Aug. 

21,  608, 

May 

7,  615. 

68,  Deusdedit, 

Oct. 

19,  615, 

Nov. 

8,618. 

69,  Boniface  V., 

Dec. 

23,  619, 

Oct. 

22,  625. 

70,  Honorius  I., 

Oct. 

27,  625, 

Oct. 

12,  638. 

71,  Severinus, 

May 

28,  640, 

Aug. 

1,  640. 

72,  John  IV., 

Dec. 

24,  640, 

Oct. 

10,  642. 

73,  Theodore, 

Nov. 

24,  642, 

May 

13,  649. 

74,  Martini., 

July 

5,  649, 

Sept. 

16,  654. 

75,  Eugenius  I., 

Sept. 

8,  654, 

June 

1,  657. 

76,  Vitalian, 

July 

30,  657, 

Jan. 

27,  672. 

77,  Adeodatus, 

April 

22,  672, 

June 

25,  676, 

78,  Domnus, 

Nov. 

1,  676, 

April 

11,  678. 

79,  Agatho, 

June 

27,  678, 

Jan. 

10,  682. 

80,  Leo  II., 

Aug. 

17,  682, 

July 

3,  683. 

81,  Benedict  II., 

June 

26,  684, 

May 

7,  685. 

82,  John  v.. 

July 

23,  685, 

Aug. 

2,  686. 

83,  Conon, 

Oct. 

21,  686, 

Sept. 

21,  687. 

84,  Sergius,  I., 

Dec. 

15,  687, 

Sept. 

7,  701. 

85,  John  VI., 

Oct. 

28,  701, 

Jan. 

9,  705. 

86,  John  VII., 

March    1,  705, 

Oct. 

17,  707. 

87,  Sissinnus, 

Jan. 

18,  708, 

Feb. 

6,  708. 

88,  Constantine, 

March  24,  708, 

April 

8,  715. 

89,  Gregory  II., 

May 

20,  715, 

Feb. 

11,  731. 

90,  Gregory  III.. 

March  18,  731, 

Nov. 

28,  741. 

91,  Zachary, 

Nov. 

30,  741, 

March  4,  752. 

92,  Stephen  II., 

died  before  consecrated. 

93,  Stephen  III., 

March  26,  752, 

April 

24,  757. 

94,  Paul  I.,* 

May 

30,  757, 

June 

28,  767. 

95,  Stephen  IV., 

Aug. 

7,  768, 

Feb. 

2,  772. 

96,  Adrian  I., 

Feb. 
30* 

9,  772, 

Dec. 

25,  795, 

3§0                                               BISHOPS  OF 

ROME. 

Name. 

Consecrated. 

Died. 

97,  Leo  III., 

Dec. 

27,  795, 

June 

12,  816. 

98,  Stephen  V., 

June 

22,  816, 

Jan. 

24,  817. 

99,  Paschal  I., 

Jan. 

25,  817, 

Feb. 

10,  824. 

100,  Eugenius  II., 

Feb. 

14,  824, 

Aug. 

827. 

101,  Valentine,*  died  before  consecrated. 

102,  Gregory  IV., 

827, 

Jan. 

25,  844. 

103,  SergiusIL, 

Feb. 

10,  844, 

Jan. 

27,  847. 

104,  Leo  IV., 

April 

11,847, 

July 

17,  855. 

105,  Benedict  III., 

Sept. 

29,  855, 

April 

8,  858. 

106,  Nicholas  I., 

April 

24,  858, 

Nov. 

12,  867. 

107,  Adrian  II., 

Dec. 

14,  867, 

872. 

108,  John  VIII., 

Dec. 

14,  872, 

Dec. 

15,  882. 

109,  Martin  II., 

882, 

May, 

884. 

110,  Adrian  III., 

May, 

884, 

885. 

Ill,  Stephen  VI., 

885, 

May, 

891. 

112,  Formosus,t 

May, 

4,  891, 

April 

4,  896. 

Boniface  VI.,  15  days,  not  numbered  in 

the  list. 

113,  Stephen  VII. ,t 

896, 

897. 

114,  Romanus,  about  4 

:  months, 

898. 

115,  Theodore  II.,  20 

days, 

898. 

116,  John  IX., 

July 

15,  898, 

Aug. 

1,  900. 

117,  Benedict  IV., 

Aug. 

2,  900, 

Oct. 

3,  803. 

118,  Leo  v., 

903, 

903. 

119,  Christopher, 

903, 

903. 

120,  Sergius  III., 

903, 

910. 

121,  Anastasius  III., 

910, 

913. 

122,  Landon, 

Oct. 

16,  913, 

April 

26,  914. 

123,  John  X.,t 

April 

27,  914, 

929. 

124,  Leo  VI., 

June 

28,  928, 

Feb. 

3,  929. 

125,  Stephen  VIII., 

Feb. 

3,  929, 

March   5,  931. 

126,  John  XL, 

March    5,  931, 

Jan. 

5,  936. 

127,  Leo  VIL, 

Jan. 

8,  936, 

July 

18,  939. 

128,  Stephen  IX., 

July, 

939, 

Dec. 

942. 

BISHOPS  OF   ROME. 

i501 

Name. 

Consecrated. 

Died 

129,  Martin  III, 

Jan. 

943, 

July, 

946. 

130,  Agapetus  II, 

946, 

956. 

131,  John  XII, 

956, 

964. 

132,  Benedict  V, 

964, 

965. 

133,  John  XIII,  t 

Oct. 

3, 

965, 

Sept.  8, 

972. 

134,  Benedict  VL, 

Dec. 

972, 

March, 

974. 

135,  Domnus  II, 

974, 

975. 

136,  Benedict  VII,t 

Mar. 

25, 

975, 

July  10, 

984. 

137,  John  XIV,t 

984, 

985. 

138,  John  XV, 

Dec. 

985, 

996. 

139,  Gregory  V,t 

996, 

Feb.l8, 

999. 

140,  Sylvester  II,t 

April 

2, 

,    999, 

Mayll, 

1003. 

141,  John  XVII, 

May 

13, 

, 1003, 

Dec.  7, 

1003, 

142,  John  XVIII, 

Dec. 

26, 

1003, 

1009. 

143,  Sergius  IV,t 

1009, 

1012. 

144,  Benedict  VIII,t 

1012, 

1024. 

145,  John  XIX, 

1024, 

1033. 

146,  Benedict  IX, 

1034, 

1044. 

147,  Gregory  VI, 

1044, 

1046. 

148,  Clement  II,t 

1046, 

Nov.  7, 

1047. 

149,  Damasus  II,t 

July 

17, 

1048, 

Aug.  10, 

1048. 

150,  Leo  IX,t 

Feb. 

2, 

.  1049, 

April  9, 

1054. 

151,  Victor  II,t 

April 

12, 

1054, 

1057. 

152,  Stephen  X, 

Aug. 

2, 

1057, 

Mar.  29, 

1058. 

153,  Nicholas  II,t 

Dec. 

28, 

1058, 

June   3, 

1061. 

154,  Alexander  II,t 

Sept. 

21, 

1062, 

Apr.  12, 

1073. 

155,  Gregory  VII,* 

Apr. 

27, 

1073, 

May  25, 

1085. 

156,  Victor  III, 

May 

25, 

1086, 

Sept.l6, 

1087. 

157,  Urban  II,t 

1087, 

1099. 

158,  Paschalll, 

1099, 

Jan.  21, 

1118. 

159,  Gelasius  II, 

Jan. 

25, 

1118, 

Jan.  29, 

1119. 

160,  Calixtus  II,t 

Feb. 

1, 

1119, 

Dec.  13, 

1124. 

161,  Honorius  IL,t 

Dec. 

21, 

1124, 

Feb.  14, 

1130. 

352  BISHOPS  OF.  ROME. 

Name.  Consecrated.  Died. 

162,  Innocent  IL,  Feb.   15,  i  130,  Sept.24,  1143. 

163,  Celestine  IL,  Sept.  26,  1143,  Mar.    9,  1144. 

164,  Lucius  IL,  1144,  Feb.25,  1145. 

165,  Eugenius  III.,  Feb.   27,  1145,  July    7,  1153. 

166,  Anastasius  IV.,t         Aug.  26,  1153,  Dec.  2,  1154. 

167,  Adrian  IV., t  Feb.          1154,  Sept.       1159. 

168,  Alexander  III.,  Sept.  20,  1159,  Aug.  30,  1181. 

169,  Lucius  II.,t  Sept.     6,  1181,  Nov.  24,  1185. 

170,  Urban  IIL,t  Nov.  25,  1185,  Oct.  19,  1187. 

171,  Gregory  VIIL,  Oct.    21,1187,  Dec.17,1187. 

172,  Clement  III.,t  Dec.   19,  1188,  Mar.  28,  1191. 

173,  Celestine  III.,*  Mar.   30,  1191,  Jan.     8,1198. 

174,  Innocent  III.,  Jan.       8,1199,  July  16,  1216. 

175,  Honorius  III.,  July    17,  1216,  Mar.  18,  1227. 

176,  Gregory  IX.,t  1227,  1241. 

177,  Celestine  IV. ,t  died  before  consecration  ;  vacancy  twen- 
ty months  and  fifteen  days. 

178,  Innocent  IV.,  June,         1244,  Dec.   7,  1254. 

179,  Alexander  IV.,t  Dec.          1254,  June   7,  1261. 

180,  Urban  IV.,t  Sept.    4,1261,  Nov.        1264. 

181,  Clement  IV.,t  Feb.          1265,  Nov.  25, 1268. 

182,  Gregory  X.,*  Dec.   30,  1271,  Jan.  10,  1276. 

183,  Innocent  V.,t  1276,  June  22,  1276. 

184,  Adrian  V.,  died  before  consecrated. 

185,  John  XXL,t  1276,  May,       1277. 

186,  Nicholas  III.,*  Nov.          1277,  Aug.  22, 1280. 

187,  Martin  IV.,  Feb.   22,  1281,  Mar.  29,  1285. 

188,  Honorius  IV.,*  April     2,  1285,  April  3,  1287. 

189,  Nicholas  IV.,t  Feb.   22,  1288,  April  4,  1292. 

190,  Celestine  V.,  July,         1294,  Dec.  3,  1294. 

191,  Boniface  VIIL,  Dec.  24,  1294,  Oct.         1303. 

192,  Benedict  XL,t  Nov.          1303,  July    4,  1304. 

193,  Clement  V.,t  June     5,  1305,  Apr.  20,  1314. 


BISHOPS  OF  ROME. 


sas 


Name. 

Consecrated. 

Died. 

194,  John  XXII.,t 

Dec. 

1316, 

Dec.   4, 

195,  Benedict  XII., 

Dec. 

20, 

1334, 

Apr.  25, 

196,  Clement  VI., 

May 

7, 

1342, 

Dec.   4, 

197,  Innocent  VI. ,t 

Dec. 

18, 

1352, 

Sept.l2, 

198,  Urban  V., 

Sept. 

25, 

1362, 

Dec.   9, 

199,  Gregory  XL, 

Jan. 

5, 

1371, 

Mar.  17, 

200,  Urban  VI.,t 

April 

8, 

1378, 

Oct.  15, 

201,  Boniface  IX., 

Nov. 

2 

1389, 

Sept. 

202,  Innocent  VII., t 

Oct. 

17, 

1404, 

Nov.   4, 

203,  Gregory  XII. ,t 

1406, 

June  15, 

204,  Alexander  V.,t 

1409, 

May    4, 

205,  John  XXIII., 

1410, 

May  29, 

206,  Martin  V., 

Nov. 

11, 

1417, 

Feb.  22, 

207,  Eugenius  IV., 

Mar. 

3, 

1431, 

Feb.  17, 

208,  Nicholas  V.,t 

1447, 

Mar.  24, 

209,  Calixtus  III.,t 

April 

8, 

1450, 

Aug.    8, 

210,  Pius  II. ,t 

Aug. 

19, 

1458, 

Aug.  14, 

211,  Paul  II., 

1464, 

July  16, 

212,  Sixtus  IV., 

1471, 

213,  Innocent  VIII., 

Aug. 

28, 

1484, 

July  25, 

214,  Alexander  VI., t 

Aug. 

18, 

1492, 

Aug.  18, 

215,  Pius  III., 

Sept. 

22, 

1503, 

Oct.  18, 

216,  Julius  II., 

1503, 

Feb.  21, 

217,  Leo  X., 

Mar. 

15, 

1513, 

Dec.   1, 

218,  Adrian  VI., 

Jan. 

9, 

1522, 

Sept.l4, 

219,  Clement  VIL, 

1523, 

Sept.25, 

220,  Paul  III.,t 

Oct. 

3, 

1534, 

Nov.  10, 

221,  Julius  III., 

Feb. 

8, 

1550, 

Mar.  23, 

222,  Marcellus  II., 

April 

9, 

1555, 

Apr.  30, 

223,  Paul  IV., 

May 

22, 

1555, 

Aug.  18, 

224,  Pius  IV., 

Dec. 

23, 

1559. 

Dec.   9, 

225,  Pius  v., 

Jan. 

7, 

1566, 

May    9, 

226,  Gregory  XIIL, 

May 

13, 

1572, 

Apr.  10, 

3S4 


BISHOPS  OF  ROME. 


Name. 

227,  Sixtus  v., 

228,  Urban  VII., 

229,  Gregory  XIV.,t 

230,  Innocent  IX., 

231,  Clement  VIII., 

232,  Leo  XL, 

233,  Paul  v., 

234,  Gregory  XV.,t 

235,  Urban  VIII. , 

236,  Innocent  X., 

237,  Alexander  VII., 

238,  Clement  IX., 

239,  Clement  X., 

240,  Innocent  XL, 

241,  Alexander  VIIL, 

242,  Innocent  XII. ,t 

243,  Clement  XL, 

244,  Innocent  XIIL, 

245,  Benedict  XIIL,t 

246,  Clement  XIL,t 

247,  Benedict  XIV. ,1 

248,  Clement  XIIL, 

249,  Clement  XIV., 

250,  Pius  VI., 

251,  Pius  VII., 

252,  Leo  XIL, 

253,  Pius  VIIL, 

254,  Gregory  XVI., 

Of  those  in  the  preceding  list,  who  had  been  Bishops  else- 
where, Urban  IV.,  the  one  hundred  and  eightieth,  was  Patri- 
arch of  Jerusalem,  and  Gregory  XIIL,  the  two  hundred  and 
third,  was  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  at  the  time  of  their 
election. 


Consecrated. 

Died. 

April 

24,  1585, 

Aug.  27,  1590. 

Sept. 

15,  1590, 

Sept.27,  1590. 

Dec. 

5,  1590, 

Oct.  15,  1591. 

Oct. 

30,  1591, 

Dec.  30,  1591. 

Jan. 

30,  1592, 

Mar.    3,  1605. 

April 

1,  1605, 

Apr.  28,  1605. 

May 

17,  1605, 

Jan.  28,  1621. 

Feb. 

9,  1621, 

July    8,  1623. 

Aug. 

6,  1623, 

July  29,  1644. 

Sept. 

15,  1644, 

Jan.    7,  1655. 

April 

7,  1655, 

May  22,  1667. 

June 

20,  1667, 

Dec.    9,  1669. 

April 

29,  1670, 

July  22,  1676. 

Sept. 

21,  1676, 

July  31,  1689. 

Oct. 

7,  1689, 

Feb.    2,  1691. 

July 

12,  1691, 

Sept.28,  1700. 

Nov. 

23,  1700, 

Mar.  18,1721. 

May 

7,  1721, 

Mar.   3,  1724. 

May 

29,  1724, 

Feb.  21,  1730. 

July 

11,  1730, 

Feb.    6,  1740. 

Aug. 

17,  1740, 

May    8,  1758. 

July 

10,  1758, 

Feb.    2,  1769. 

May 

19,  1769, 

Sept.22, 1774. 

Feb. 

15,  1775, 

July    1,  1799. 

Mar. 

14,  1800, 

Aug.  23, 1823. 

Sept. 

27,  1823, 

Feb.        1829. 

Mar. 

31,  1829, 

Nov.  30,  1830. 

Feb. 

2,  1831. 

CONTINUITY  OF  THE  SUCCESSION.  355 


CHAPTER  XXVII. 

ALLEDGED  BREAKS  IN  OUR  SUCCESSION. 

From  the  facts  detailed  in  the  preceding  chapters,  it  will  be 
seen,  that  the  idea  of  a  break  in  the  Apostolic  succession  is 
absurd  ;  and  the  occurrence  of  such  an  event  next  to  an  im- 
possibility. But  notwithstanding  this,  objections  have  often 
been  urged  by  those,  unlearned  in  these  matters,  the  principal 
of  which  we  shall  consider.  The  first  to  which  we  refer  is 
stated  thus  :  "  It  has  been  said  that,  '  in  the  year  668,  the 
successors  of  Austin  being  almost  entirely  extinct,  by  far  the 
greatest  part  of  the  Bishops  were  of  Scottish  ordination  by 
Aidan  and  Finnan,  who  came  out  of  the  Culdee  Monastery  of 
Columbanus,  and  were  no  more  than  Presbyters.'  "  The  orig- 
inal authority  for  this  assertion,  is  said  to  be  the  Venerable 
Bede,  whom  we  have  so  often  quoted.  But  Bede  expressly 
tells  us  that  Aidan  and  Finnan  were  the  Bishops  of  Lindisfarne, 
now  Durham,  in  the  Arch-diocese  of  York.  According  to 
Bede,  Oswald,  king  of  Northumberland,  A.  D.  635,  sent  to  the 
Scottish  rulers,  desiring  them  to  send  Bishops — that  they  sent 
Aidan — that  the  Bishop  coming  to  the  king,  had  his  Episcopal 
seat  in  Lindisfarne — that  Bishop  Aidan  had  been  a  Monk  in 
the  Island  of  Hii.  Chapter  fifth  of  the  same  book  is  entitled, 
"  Life  of  Bishop  xA-idan  ;"  and  it  is  said,  "  from  this  Monastery 
[in  the  Island  of  Hii]  Aidan  was  sent,  having  received  the 
office  of  a  Bishop."  In  the  face  of  all  this,  it  would  be  as 
true  to  say,  that  Bede  calls  Aidan  a  layman,  as  to  say  that  he 
calls  him  a  Presbyter. 

It  does  not  devolve  upon  us  to  show  how  such  mistakes  as 
this  have  originated,  but  as  the  reason  is  obvious,  we  shall 
explain  how  it  probably  happened.  The  Picts  were  con- 
verted to  Christianity  by  the  preaching  of  one  Columb,  "  an 


3.56  ORDINATIONS  BY  SCOTTISH  BISHOPS. 

Irish  Presbyter,  Abbot,  and  Monk,"  A.  D.  565.*  Among 
other  persons  converted  by  the  preaching  of  Columb,  was 
Bridius,  the  king  of  the  Picts,  and  in  return  for  his  eminence, 
his  piety,  and  his  labors,  Bridius  gave  to  Columb  the  Island 
of  Hii,  or  lona,  and  conferred  upon  him  the  government  of  the 
Island.  Bede's  account  of  this  Island  is  :  "  That  Island 
hath  for  its  ruler  an  Abbot  vs^ho  is  only  a  Presbyter,  to  whose 
government  all  the  provinces,  and  even  the  Bishops,  (contrary 
to  the  usual  custom,)  are  subject,  after  the  example  of  their 
first  Doctor,  who  was  not  a  Bishop,  but  a  Presbyter  and  a 
Monk."t  Now  because  the  Governor  of  this  Island  was  al- 
ways to  be  the  Abbot  of  that  Monastery,  and  that  Abbot 
always  to  be  a  Presbyter,  the  Bishop  in  civil  matters  was 
subject  to  one,  who  in  all  Ecclesiastical  functions  was  his  in- 
ferior ;  therefore  the  objectors  have  inferred,  that  the  Bishops 
of  that  Island  were  Presbyters. 

Concerning  Finnan,  we  need  give  only  one  extract  from 
Bede.  Under  date  652,  he  says  :  "  Finnan  succeeded  him 
[Aidan]  in  the  Episcopate,  being  also  sent  from  the  Monas- 
tery of  Hii,  in  the  Scottish  Island,  and  remained  a  long  time 
in  the  Episcopate,  (Episcopatu."):|: 

To  show  beyond  all  question,  the  ignorance  which  origi- 
nated this  objection,  and  the  folly  of  urging  it,  we  shall  men- 
tion a  few  of  the  Bishops  then  living  in  England.  The  pe- 
riod in  question  extends  from  635,  when  Aidan  came  into 
Northumberland,  to  the  year  668,  mentioned  in  the  foregoing 
extract. 

PROVINCE  OF  CANTERBURY. 

Diocese  of  Canterbury. 

Honorius,  consecrated  by  Paulinus  of  York,^  626 — 654. 

Adeodatus,  consecrated  by  Ithamar,  of  Rochester,  ||654 — 664. 

*  Bede,  iii.  4.  f  Bade,  iii.  4.  %  Bcde,  iii.  6,  1 7. 

§Bd.  iii.  7.  ||  Bd.  iii.  7. 


BISHOPS  IN  THE  TIME  OF  AIDAN  AND  FINNAN.  357 

[Wilfrid,  of  York,]  consecrated  by  Archbishop  of  Paris. 

Theodore,  consecrated  by  Bishop  of  Rome,  668 — 692. 

Dorchester. 

Birinus,  consecrated  by  Bishop  of  Geneva,*  625 — 650. 

Agilbert,  consecrated  in  Paris,t  650 — 737. 

Lichfield  and  Coventry. 

Diuma,  consecrated  by  Finnan,;}:  656 — 658. 

Ceollach,  consecrated  by  Scottish  Bishops4  658 — 660. 

Trumhere,  consecrated  by  Scottish  Bishops,|  660 — 663. 

London. 

MelUtus,  consecrated  by  Augustine,  604 — 658. 

Cedd,  consecrated  by  Finnan  and  Wina,^  658 — 664. 

Norwich. 

Felix,  consecrated  in  Burgundy,*  636 — 648. 

Thomas,  consecrated  by  Archbishop  Honorius,!  648 — 652. 

Bregils,  consecrated  by  Archbishop  Honorius, |1  652 — 665. 

Rochester. 

Romanus,  consecrated  by  Archbishop  Justus,^!  624 — 634. 

PauUnus,  consecrated  by  Archbishop  Justus,lF  633 — 644. 

Ithamar,  consecrated  by  Archbishop  Honorius,**  644 — 656. 

Damian,  consecrated  by  Archbishop  Adeodatus,tt  656 — 669. 

Winchester. 

Birne,  consecrated  by  Bishop  of  Geneva,^:}:  636 — 660. 

Wina,  consecrated  in  Gall,J|  660 — 670. 

PROVINCE  OF  YORK. 
Diocese  of  York. 

PauHnus,  consecrated  by  Archbishop  Justus, ^^  625-— 644. 

Cedd,  consecrated  by  Finnan  and  Wina,  666 — 669. 

Wilfrid,  consecrated  by  Archbishop  Paris,  669 — 678. 


♦  Bede,  iii.  7. 

t  Bd.  iii.  7. 

:fBd.  iii.  21. 

§  Bd.  ii.  15. 

II  Bd.  iii.  20. 

IT  Bd.  ii.  8,  9. 

**  Bd.  iii.  14. 

tt  Bd.  iii.  20. 

t^Bd.  iii.  7. 

§§  Bd.  ii.  8,  9. 
31 

358  BISHOPS  IN  THE  TIME  OF  AIDAN  AND  FINNAN. 

Lindisfarne,  w  Durliam. 

Aidan,  consecrated  by  Scottish  Bishops,  635 — 652. 

Finnan,  consecrated  by  Scottish  Bishops,  652 — 661. 

Coleman,  consecrated  by  Scottish  Bishops,*  661 — 664. 

Tuda,  consecrated  by  Scottish  Bishops,!  664 — 665. 

Eata,  consecrated  by  Scottish  Bishops,:}:  665 — 684. 

Cuthbert,  consecrated  by  Scottish  Bishops,^  684 — 687. 

We  see,  therefore,  that  at  the  time  Aidan  was  consecrated 
Bishop  of  Lindisfarne,  (Durham,)  there  were  certainly  seven 
Bishops  living  in  England,  one  of  whom  was  the  Metropolitan 
of  his  own  province.  The  objection  is,  therefore,  without 
any  foundation.  The  true  reason  why  Oswald  sent  to  Scot- 
land for  Bishops,  was  not  the  scarcity  of  Bishops  of  England, 
but  the  different  practices  of  the  two  Churches  concerning 
keeping  Easter.  The  Northumbrians  retained  many  of  the 
customs  of  the  British  Churches,  and  among  others,  that  of 
keeping  Easter  with  the  Greek  Church.  This  was  for  a  long 
time  a  bone  of  contention  between  the  Saxon  and  British 
clergy  ;  and  the  old  practice  continued  in  Northumberland  till 
664,  when  it  was  changed  by  the  King.|| 

Besides,  there  is  another  objection  to  the  hypothesis  of  our 
opponents.  When  Cedd  was  consecrated  Archbishop  of 
York,  A.  D.  666,  by  Finnan,l[  in  the  absence  of  Wilfrid,  ex- 
ceptions were  taken  to  his  consecration,  as  being  uncanonical, 
and  the  rite  of  consecration  was  consummated  by  the  con- 
firmation of  Theodore,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  the  Pri- 
mate of  the  realm,  A.  D.  669.** 

Another  objection,  often  urged  against  the  succession  of  the 
English  Church,  is  stated  thus  :  '*  The  Church  of  England 
descended  from  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  derived  her  orders 


*  Bede,  iii.  25.  f  Bd.  iii.  26.  ^  Vita  Cuth.  cc.  6,  25. 

§  YUk  Cuth.  c.  25.  ||  Bd.  iii.  25,  20.  IT  Bd.  iii.  22. 

♦♦  Bd.  iv.  2. 


BRITISH  CHURCH  INDEPENDENT  OF  THE  ROMISH.  359 

from  that  Church.  Hence  it  is  said,  that  inasmuch  as  the 
Church  of  England  has  been  excommunicated  by  the  Bishop 
of  Rome,  the  succession  has  been  destroyed."  To  this  ob- 
jection we  reply : — 

1.  That  the  Church  of  England  did  not  descend  from  the 
Church  of  Rome,  as  has  been  fully  shown  in  the  preceding 
chapters. 

2.  That  each  Bishop,  having  been  originally,  as  we  have 
shown,  independent  of  every  other  Bishop,  no  Bishop  could 
have  power  to  depose  or  excommunicate  other  Bishops,  unless 
that  power  had  been  subsequently  granted  to  him  by  some 
sufficient  authority.  Now  there  is  no  authority  that  could 
grant  this,  except  a  General  Council ;  and  no  General  Coun- 
cil ever  has  granted  the  Bishop  of  Rome  this  authority  over 
the  Bishops  of  England.  On  the  contrary,  it  was  expressly 
enacted  by  the  sixth  canon  of  the  Council  of  Nice,  k.  D. 
325,  that  the  ancient  customs  and  rights  of  the  Churches 
should  not  be  changed  ;  and  it  is  a  matter  of  fact,  which  no 
one  pretends  to  question,  that  the  Bishops  of  England  were 
then  subject  to  the  Metropolitan  of  Caerleon. 

3.  That  whatever  authority  the  Bishop  of  Rome  may  have 
over  other  Bishops,  he  has  none  over  those  of  England,  inas- 
much as  they  have  ever  been  legally  and  canonically  indepen- 
dent of  him.  This  will  appear  more  plainly  from  a  considera- 
tion of  the  original  and  continued  independence  of  the  Brit- 
ish Churches,  which  will  be  given  in  the  succeeding  chapter. 


CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

INDEPENDENCE  OF  THE  BRITISH  CHURCHES. 

In  treating  of  this  subject,  we  shall  first  consider  the  state 
of  things  in   Britain  at  the  time  Augustine  arrived  there,  in 


360        BRITISH  CHURCH  INDEPENDENT  OF  THE  ROMISH. 

order  to  gain  a  distinct  idea  of  the  situation  of  things  in  the 
British  Church  at  that  time.  Augustine  was  consecrated  at 
Aries,  596.  In  598,  he  wrote  to  Gregory,  Bishop  of  Rome, 
for  advice  touching  certain  points  of  inquiry.  One  of  the 
questions  was,  In  what  manner  he  ought  to  deal  with  the 
Bishops  of  Gall  and  Britain  ?  Another,  What  course  he 
ought  to  pursue  in  reference  to  the  Gallic  Liturgy,  which, 
though  different  from  the  Romish  Liturgy,  was  in  use  in  the 
British  and  Gallic  Churches  1  In  answer,  Gregory  tells  him, 
that  he  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  Bishops  of  Gall,  who  were 
subject  to  the  Bishop  of  Aries  as  their  Metropolitan  ;  that  he 
ought  to  have  authority  over  the  British  Bishops  ;  and  that  in 
reference  to  the  Liturgy,  he  ought  to  adopt  that  which  would 
be  most  acceptable  to  the  Saxon  Church.*  Here  are  three 
facts  conclusively  established  :  (1,)  that  there  were  canonical 
and  lawful  Bishops  in  Britain  before  Augustine  went  there  ; 
and  consequently,  he  owed  submission  to  the  Metropolitan  of 
Britain,  according  to  the  then  existing  canons  of  the  Church  ; 
(2,)  that  the  Liturgy  used  in  Gaul  was  not  the  same  as  the  Ro- 
man Liturgy  ;  (3,)  that  this  Liturgy  was  used  in  Britain  ;  and 
this  Liturgy,  as  we  have  already  seen,  was  the  Ephesian. 

That  these  Bishops  owed  no  subjection  to  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  is  clear  from  the  history  of  those  times.  Thus  in  the 
year  603,  Augustine  held  a  conference  with  the  British  clergy. 
At  this  conference,  Bede  informs  us,t  there  were  "  seven 
British  Bishops,  and  many  learned  men."  In  order  to  induce 
them  to  acknowledge  his  authority,  Augustine  promised  them, 
if  they  would  keep  Easter  on  the  same  day  as  the  Romish' 
Church,  would  baptize  according  to  the  rites  and  ceremonies 
of  that  Church,  and  would  preach  the  gospel  to  the  Saxons, 
they  should  be  allowed  to  enjoy  all  their  other  customs ;  to 
which  the  British  Bishops  replied,  we  will  neither  do  these 


*  Bede,  Ecc.  Hist.  i.  c.  27.  f  Bd.  ii.  c.  2 


DINOTH's  answer  to  AUGUSTINE.  361 

things^  nor  submit  to  you  as  Archbishops  over  us.  Very  little 
of  what  passed  at  that  time  has  been  preserved ;  but  from  that 
little  it  appears  that  the  subject  was  strongly  debated.*  Among 
the  speakers  was  Dinoth,  Abbot  of  the  Monastery  of  Bangor. 
His  answer  has  been  preserved,  and  it  goes  the  whole  length 
of  sustaining  the  entire  independence  of  the  British  clergy, 
of  the  Pope  of  Rome.     He  said  to  Augustine  : 

"  Be  it  certainly  known  unto  you,  that  we  all,  every  one  of 
us,  are  obedient  and  subject  to  the  Church  of  God,  to  the  Pope 
of  Rome,  and  to  every  pious  Christian,  to  the  loving  of  every 
one  in  his  station,  with  perfect  charity,  and  to  the  helping  of 
every  one  of  them  by  word  and  deed,  to  become  the  sons  of 
God.  And  I  know  not  of  any  other  obedience  than  this,  due 
to  him  you  call  Pope,  or  which  may  be  claimed  or  de- 
manded by  the  Father  of  Fathers.  And  this  obedience  we 
are  ready  to  give ;  and  to  pay  to  him,  and  to  every  other 
Christian  continually.  Besides,  we  are  under  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Bishop  of  Caerleon  upon  Wiske,  who,  under 
God,  is  to  oversee  over  us,  to  cause  us  to  walk  in  the  way  of 
life."t 

*  Bede,  ii.  2. 

t  This  important  passage  was  first  published  by  Sir  H.  Spelman,  (Con- 
cilia, I.  p.  108,)  from  an  old  MSS.  purporting  to  have  been  copied  from  one 
still  more  ancient,  and  is  re-printed  in  Wilkin's,  {ConciL,  and  Smith's 
Bede,  App.  x.  p.  716,  and  Fuller's  Ch.  Hist,  in  anno  601.)  The  genuine- 
ness of  this  answer  has  been  assailed  by  the  Romish  writers,  (Tuber. 
Man.  p.  406.  Ling.  Hist.  A..  S.  Church,  p.  42,)  but  on  insufficient  grounds. 
It  was  defisnded  by  Stillingfleet  (Orig.  Brit.  c.  v.  p.  224)  and  Bingham, 
(Antq.  Ecc.  ii.  9.)  The  first  objection,  that  "the  language  is  modern,"  is 
without  foundation.  The  second,  that  the  Metropolitan  See  was  not  then  in 
Caer-Ieon,  is  also  without  foundation.  The  conference  between  Augustine 
and  Dinoth,  took  place  about  A.  D.  603,  (Bede,  ii.  2,)  whereas  the  Arch- 
bishops of  London  and  York  had  gone  into  "Wales  as  early  as  597,  (Fur. 
Libro.  Epis.  Brit,  in  Ussh.  Prim.  67.  Wra.  Malms,  De  Gest.  Reg.  L.  i.  c. 
6.  Mat.  West.  An.  586,)  and  had  fixed  their  seat  at  "  Kaerllion  ar  Wye," 
Caer-leon  upon  Wiske,"  (O'Brien's  Focal.  Gaoigh.  Intd.  xvii.,  xix.) 
31* 


362  NUMBER  OF  BRITISH  BISHOPS. 

These  facts  prove,  beyond  all  cavil,  that  before  Augustine 
came  to  England,  there  was  a  Church  established  there,  duly- 
organized,  upon  Apostolical  principles,  having  the  same  offi- 
cers or  ministers  as  other  Churches,  v^rith  a  Liturgy  different 
from  that  of  Rome,  and  with  Bishops,  owning  and  acknowl- 
edging no  subjection  to  the  Pope.  The  number  of  Bishops  in 
England  at  that  time  we  do  not  know.  Bede  says  there 
were  seven  present  at  the  conference  with  Augustine.*  A 
very  ancient  authorf  reckons  the  number  at  twenty-five  Bish- 
ops, and  three  Archbishops.  And  this  is  rendered  probable 
by  the  fact,  that  the  subscriptions  of  tliree  Bishops  are  found 
in  the  ancient  councils,  as  to  that  of  Aries,  314. 

We  shall  now  go  back  and  give  a  few  brief  historical  no- 
tices of  the  British  Church,  anterior  to  the  time  of  Augustine, 
showing  that  there  had  been  a  Church  in  England  from  the 
very  time  of  the  Apostles.  The  earliest  history  of  the  Brit- 
ish Church  has  been  involved  in  much  obscurity,  by  the  de- 
struction of  the  records  of  that  Church ;  and  much  doubt  and 
uncertainty  has  been  thrown  over  it,  by  the  manner  in  which 
it  has  been  treated  by  the  later.  Monkish  historians,  to  whom 
we  are  indebted  for  very  much  of  the  history  of  those  times. 
A.  D.  58.  From  those  valuable  historical  documents,  the 
Welsh  Triads,!  it  appears  that  Caradoc  was  betrayed  and  de- 
livered up  by  Aregwedd  Foedig,  about  A.  D.  51  or  52,  who, 
with  Bran,  (Brennus,)  his  father,  Cyllin,  (Linus,)  his  son,  and 
Eigan,  his  daughter,  were  carried  prisoners  to  Rome,  and  re- 
mained in  bondage  seven  years.  While  here.  Bran,  probably 
Caradoc,  certainly  his  son  and  daughter,  became  converts  to 
Christianity.     At  the  end  of  seven  years,  when  Bran  was  set 

*Hisl.  ii.2. 

t  GaltVidns  Monememuthensi!?,  Hist.  Brit.  ii.  c.  1.  Etl.  Aserr.  iv.  c.  19. 
Ed.  Heidleburg.  See  also  Hen.  Hunt.  i.  170.  Smith's  Bd.  App.  iii., 
Ussh.  Prim.  59. 

%  Taylor's  Cal.  in  loco. 


PRIMITIVE   CHRISTIANITY   IN   BRITAIN.  363 

at  liberty,  he  returned  to  Britain,  taking  with  him  three  other 
converts  to  Christianity.  Of  these,  one  was  Hid,  a  converted 
Jew,  another  Cyndav,  and  the  third  Arwystli  Hen,  who  ap- 
pears to  have  been  the  person  called  Aristobulus,*  whose 
"  household"  was  saluted  by  Paul  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans, at  the  end  of  the  same  year,  (A.  D.  58,)  or  the  begin- 
ning of  the  succeeding.  This  conclusion  is  strengthened  by 
the  fact,  that  Nicephorus,  a  Greek  historian,  and  another  Greek 
author,  which  goes  under  the  name  of  Dorotheus,  both  record 
that  Aristobulus  went  into  Britain,  and  was  one  of  the  first 
Bishops  of  that  Church ;  that  he  made  many  converts,  or- 
dained Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons,  and  died  there. 

This  account  of  the  introduction  of  Christianity  into  Britain, 
from  the  Triads,  is  supported  by  Gildas,  a  British  historian, 
who  wrote  about  560,  who  affirms,  out  of  ancient  records,  that 
Christianity  was  introduced  into  Britain  about  the  time  of  the 
revolt  and  overthrow  of  Boadice,  A.  D.  60  or  61. \  So  Ter- 
tuUian,  A.  D.  190,  says  :  "there  are  places  in  Britain  inac- 
cessible to  the  Roman  arms,  which  were  subdued  to  Christ."| 
And  Origen,  A.  D.  230,  says :  "  the  power  of  God  our  Sa- 
viour is  ever  with  them  in  Britain,  who  are  divided  from  our 
world."§ 

63.  About  four  years  after  this.  A,  D.  63,  St.  Paul  ap- 
pears to  have  visited  Britain.  That  he  had  time,  has  been 
abundantly  shown  by  Bishop  Stillingfleet  and.others,||  and  that 
he  had  great  inducements  to  do  it,  there  can  be  no  doubt,  for 
there  were  many  persons  at  Rome  who  would  desire  it.  Thus 
Linus,  who  was  a  particular  friend  of  St.  Paul,  mentioned  by 
him  in  his  second  Epistle  to  Timothy,  (iv.  21,)  and  was  or- 
dained by  Paul,  first  Bishop  of  Rome,l  appears  to  have  been 

*  Taylor's  Cal.  in  Aristob.  f  Ep.  c.  1. 

:t  Adv.  Jud.  c.  7.  §  Luke  c.  1.  Horn.  6. 

11  Orig.  Brit.     Clem.  Rom.  Ep.  Cor.  c.  5,  and  n.  in  S.  S.  Pat. 
IT  Apos.  Cons.  vii.  46. 


364  ST.  PAUL  IN  ENGLAND. 

a  native  Briton,  the  grandson  of  Bran,  the  British  king.  There 
were  also  many  other  Britons  at  Rome.*  That  St.  Paul  vis- 
ited England,  the  early  historians  of  the  Church  render  prob- 
able, if  not  certain.  Clement,  of  Rome,  a  disciple  of  Paul, 
(Phil.  iv.  3,)  and  mentioned  with  commendation  by  him  in  his 
Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  about  A.  D.  87,  or  twenty  years 
after  the  death  of  St.  Paul,  says,  that  in  preaching  the  gospel, 
St.  Paul  "  went  to  the  utmost  bounds  of  the  west,"t  which  not 
only  includes  the  island  of  Britain,  but  is  the  epithet  by  which 
that  island  was  then  known.  Eusebius,  A.  D.  325,  says  that 
one  of  the  Apostles  "  visited  the  British  isles,"J  and  Theodo- 
ret,  about  a  century  later,  A.  D.  415,  mentions  Britain  as  one 
place  where  St.  Paul  labored. §  There  is,  therefore,  no  rea- 
sonable doubt,  that  Christianity  was  preached,  and  a  Church 
established,  in  England,  as  early  as  A.  D.  63,  and  that  there 
has  been  on  that  island  at  all  times  since,  a  Church  of  the  liv- 
ing God.  Aristobulus,  being  a  Greek,  and  the  disciple  of  St. 
Paul,  when  he  went  into  Britain,  would,  of  course,  carry  with 
him  the  ecclesiastical  rites  of  the  Eastern  Churches,  and  this 
accounts  for  the  correspondence  of  the  Greek  and  British 
rites, 

167.  The  Saxon  historians,  in  speaking  of  this  period, 
give  account  of  Lucius,  a  King  of  the  Britons,  and  tell  us, 
that  this  King  sent  an  embassy  to  Eleutherius,  Bishop  of 
Rome,  requesting  him  to  send  ministers  to  Britain  to  preach 
the  Gospel  there  ;  and  that  ministers  were  sent,  who  converted 
Lucius  and  many  of  his  followers,  and  thus  laid  the  founda- 
tion of  the  British  Church. |1  This  account  was  rejected  by 
historians,  until  the  publication  of  the  Triads,  from  which  it 
appears  that  Lleurwg,  (Lucius,)  the  grandson  of  Cyllin,  or 

*  StilK  Orig.  Bril.  c.  1.  f  Ep.  Cor.  c.  5. 

ij: Demon.  Evang.  iii.  c.  5.  §  Tom.  iv.  Sem-  9,  in  Ps.  cxvi. 

II  Bede,  I.  4. 


THE  SECOND  AND  THIRD  CENTURIES.  365 

Linus,  first^Bishop  of  Rome,  was  permitted  by  the  Romans  to 
reign  over  a  part  of  Britain,  and  that  he  exerted  himself  to  pro- 
mote the  interests  of  Christianity  in  Britain.  It  is,  therefore, 
not  unlikely  that  he  sent  an  embassy  to  the  Bishop  who  filled 
the  See  once  occupied  by  his  grandfather,  and  not  at  all  un- 
likely that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  sent  clergymen  to  the  assist- 
ance of  Lleurwg,  or  Lucius,  though,  as  it  would  seem  frorn 
the  account  given  in  the  Old  Book  of  Llandaff,  that  no  per- 
sons returned  but  those  who  went  to  Rome  from  England,  one 
of  which  was  Elvanus,  the  second  Archbishop  of  London.* 

179.  The  old  Saxon  historians  agree  that  St.  Peter's 
Church,  Cornhill,  was  founded  about  this  time,  and  that  it  was 
afterwards  the  Cathedral  Church  of  the  Archbishop  of  Lon- 
don, of  which  Theonus  was  the  first  Archbishop. f  The  Arch- 
Episcopal  See  of  York  is  supposed  to  have  been  founded 
about  the  same  time,  and  Fagan  and  Theodosius  are  said  to 
have  been  the  first  Bishops. J  So  also  the  Arch-Episcopal 
See  of  Caerleon  is  supposed  to  have  been  founded  soon  af- 
ter— a  See  which  continued  long  after  the  others  had  been 
destroyed  by  the  Saxons. § 

303.  During  the  persecution  this  year,  many  suffered 
death  in  Britain,  whose  names  have  been  preserved  by  Gildas 
and  Bede.ll 

May  23.  Suffered  St.  Alban,  of  Verolamus,  the  first  Brit- 
ish martyr.^ 

July  1.  Suffered  Aaron  and  Julius,  as  Bede  says,  of  the 
city  of  Legion,  by  which  is  meant  Leon,  or  Cair-Leon.** 

*  Monas.  Angli.  vol.  III.  p.  188.  John  Furn.  Libro.  Ep.  Brit,  in  Ussh. 
Prim.  p.  67. 

t  Ralph.  Bald.  Chron.  An.  179,  in  Ussh.  Prim.  66.  J.  Furn.  Libr.  Episc. 
Brit,  in  lb. 

iPrimor.  Brit.  71,  72.  §  Prim.  Brit.  71,  72,  87—98. 

n  Ep.  §  6.     Ecc.  Hist.  i.  7.  IT  Bede,  and  all  the  British  historians. 

**Ib. 


366  THE  FOURTH  CENTURY. 

Sept.  17.     Suffered  Socrates  and  Stephen.* 

During  this  persecution,  the  Churches  were  demolished,  the 
holy  vessels  carried  off,  Christians  were  cruelly  murdered, 
and  every  indignity  offered  to  their  persons. 

314.  This  year  a  council  was  summoned  by  the  Emperor 
Constantino,  at  Aries,  in  France,  consisting  of  the  Bishops  of 
the  principal  cities  in  the  various  provinces  of  Italy,  Gall, 
and  Britain,  with  a  few  from  Africa,  to  hear  and  judge  in  the 
case  of  the  schismatic  Numidians.  Three  British  Bishops, 
Eborius,  of  York  ;  Restitutus,  of  London  ;  and  Adulfius,  whose 
diocese  has  been  the  subject  of  dispute,  attended.  His  sub- 
scription, as  it  now  stands  in  the  MSS.  copies  of  the  doings 
of  that  Council,  is,  Ex  civitate  Colonia  Londinensium.  But 
this  is  a  copy  of  the  original  subscription,  which,  as  Bishop 
Stillingfleet  has  shown,  was  probablyf  Ex  Civit.  Col.  Leg., 
which  the  transcriber  would  naturally  construe  to  mean,  as  it 
is  now  written.  Archbishop  Ussher  supposes  it  denoted  Cair- 
Colun,\  which,  according  to  Galfridus  Monemuthensis,§  de- 
notes the  city  of  Chester.  But  Mr.  Selden||  and  SirH.  Spel- 
man,^  suppose  it  to  be  the  Old  Colony  of  Camalodunum. 
We  suspect,  however,  that  the  subscription  was  as  Stilling- 
fleet supposes,  Ex  Civitate  Col.  Legion,  which  is  the  mere 
Latinization  of  Caur-Leon,  or  Ligion.  The  British  Bishops 
present  at  the  Council  of  Aries,  were,  therefore,  Eborius, 
Archbishop  of  York ;  Restitutus,  Archbishop  of  London ; 
Adulfius,  Archbishop  of  Caerleon,  with  Sacerdos,  a  Presbyter, 
and  Arminius,  a  Deacon  of  that  Church. 

402.  Kiarna  and  Declan  preached  the  gospel  in  Ireland, 
and  converted  many  to  the  faith.** 

431.  Palladius,  ordained  Bishop  of  the  Scots,  by  Celes- 
tine,  forty-third  Bishop  of  Rome.fl 

*  Petr.  de  Nat.  xi.  § 250,  in  Prim.  169.  t  O'ii?-  Brit.  48. 

X  Piiin.  GO.  195.  §  Hi.st.  Brit.  v.  c.  G.  ||  In  Eiilch.  118. 

irConc-.I.  p  39.  **Us.sh.  Prim.  781,2,  8G.     Life  Pat.  88.  ft  lb. 


THE  FIFTH   CENTURY.  367 

448.  A  Synod  was  held  at  Munster,  this  year,  at  which 
Ailbe,  Declan,  Kieran,  and  I  bar,  opposed  Patrick's  Arch- 
Episcopal  authority,  alledging  that  they  had  equal  authority 
with  him,  that  they  had  been  Bishops  longer  than  he  had,  and 
that  no  one  could  give  him  authority  over  them,  M'ithout  their 
consent ;  but  they  conceded  to  his  merits  and  to  his  success, 
what  they  refused  to  yield  when  claimed  as  a  right.  Ailbe, 
or  Albeus,  was  settled  as  Bishop  of  Emly,  [Imelacensis ;) 
Declan,  as  Bishop  of  Ardmore  ;  Kieran,  as  Bishop  of  Sageir, 
but  subsequently  translated  to  Aghavoe,  and  thence  to  Kil- 
kenny ;  and  Ibar  made  Bishop  of  Beg-eri.*  While  in  Eng- 
land, Germanus  established  several  schools,  of  which  those 
taught  by  Dubritius  and  Iltutus,  at  a  place  now  called  Bover- 
ton,  were  far  the  most  celebrated.!  The  school,  afterwards 
the  monastery  of  Bangor,  seems  to  have  commenced  about 
this  time.  According  to  the  Welsh  Triads,  there  were  2400 
religious  persons  connected  with  this  establishment,  when 
Augustine  came  to  England,  and  Bede  informs  us  that  the 
Saxon  King,  as  other  historians  say,  at  the  instigation  of  Au- 
gustine, fell  upon  and  slew  1200  of  them. J  While  in  Eng- 
land, Germanus  also  consecrated  several  Bishops,  among 
whom  were  Dubritius,  Archbishop  of  Llandafi';  Daniel,  Bish- 
op of  Bangor  ;  and  Iltutus,  Bishop  of  a  place  of  the  same 
name.§ 

493.  This  year  the  Britains,  under  their  new  King,  gained 
a  considerable  victory  over  the  Saxons  at  Badon  Hill.||  The 
Churches  were  now  rebuilt,  and  Sampson,  one  of  the  pupils 


*  Life  Patr.  88.     Prim.  Ecc.  Hist.  801,  866,  7. 

t  Still.  Orig.  Brit.  c.  iv.  p.  126.  i^Dup.  Ecc.  Writ.  Cent.  vii.  p.  52. 

§  Old  Chron.  in  Leland.  Collect,  vol.  II.  p.  42.  Old  Reg.  Lland.  in  Mo- 
nas.  Angl.  vol.  III.  p.  188.  Hen.  Hunting.  Hist.  ii.  178.  Galfrid.  Mon.  Hist, 
ix.  c.  1.  Math.  Wes.  A.  D.  490.  Still.  Orig.  Brit.  c.  4,  p.  126.  Ussher, 
Primord.  pp.  80,  979. 

II  Still.  Orig.  Brit.  129. 


368  AUGUSTINE  IN  ENGLAND. 

of  Iltutus,  and  a  man  of  eminent  piety,  was  consecrated  Arch- 
bishop of  York.  The  theological  schools  established  by  Ger- 
manus  were  at  the  height  of  their  reputation,  during  the  reign 
of  Arthur,  and  among  the  many  eminent  scholars,  we  find  the 
name  of  St.  David,  whose  piety,  virtue,  and  influence,  secured 
him  a  place  even  in  the  catalogue  of  Saxon  Saints.* 

587.  The  Saxons  at  this  time  gained  possession  of  a  much 
larger  tract  of  country,  whereupon  Thomas,  Archbishop  of 
London,  and  Thadioc,  Archbishop  of  York,  with  their  clergy, 
retired  into  Wales  ;t  so  that,  from  that  time  there  was  but  one 
Britisll  Arch-diocese — that  of  Caer-leon. 

This  brings  us  to  the  close  of  the  sixth  century,  at  which 
time  Augustine  came  to  England,  and  with  him  other  mission- 
aries from  Rome,  and  commenced  preaching  to  the  Saxons. 
Here  we  must  pause  a  moment,  and  note  the  situation  of  the 
British  Church  at  that  time.  We  have  seen  then,  that  the  fol- 
lowing circumstances  existed  at  that  period. 

1.  That  Christianity  was  preached  in  Britain  and  the  neigh- 
boring islands  at  a  very  early  period,  and  that  the  Church 
there,  had  its  Bishops  and  Liturgy,  like  other  orthodox 
Churches. 

2.  That  these  Bishops  did  not  derive  their  power  from,  nor 
acknowledge  the  authority  of  the  Pope,  and  that  they  had 
continued  their  succession  down  to  the  days  of  Augustine. 

3.  That  the  British  Liturgy  and  ecclesiastical  rites  were 
different  from  those  of  Rome,  but  corresponded  in  many  par- 
ticulars with  those  of  the  Asiatic  Churches. 

4.  That  notwithstanding  this,  the  British  Church  kept  up  a 
friendly  intercourse  with  the  neighboring  Churches,  and  were 
acknowledged,  even  by  the  Bishops  of  Rome,  to  be  sound  and 
orthodox. 

5.  That  there  were   at  least  one   Archbishop  and  seven 

*  Breviary,  Salisbury.  f  Math.  Weslmin.  A.  D.  586. 


INDEPENDENCE  OF  THE  SAXON  CHURCH.  369 

Bishops  in  England  when  Augustine  landed  there,  belonging 
to  the  Arch-episcopate  of  Caerleon. 

6.  That  the  authority  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  to  rule  over 
other  Bishops,  was  denied  from  the  very  first,  in  Ireland ;  to 
which  it  may  be  added,  that  the  Pope  could  not  persuade 
the  Archbishops  of  Armagh  to  receive  the  Pall  from  him,  until 
the  twelfth  century,  as  is  witnessed  by  Roger  Hovedon,*  and 
the  Annals  of  Mailross,  A.  D.  1152,t  which  is  also  acknowl- 
edged by  St,  Bernard  himself.l  These  facts  demonstrate,  as 
clearly  as  facts  can  do  it,  the  original  independence  of  the 
British  Churches.  And  here  we  might  leave  the  point ;  for,  if 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  had  no  rightful  authority  in  England,  so 
late  as  A.  D.  600,  it  is  clear  that  he  never  could  have  any. 
But  inasmuch  as  the  subsequent  acts  of  the  Saxon  Church 
are  appealed  to  by  the  abettors  of  Romanism,  as  proof  of  their 
subjection,  we  shall  give  a  brief  chronological  notice  of  some 
leading  events,  which  show  that  this  claim  is  as  groundless  as 
the  former. 

661.  This  year  a  council  was  held  at  Northumberland, 
at  which  the  subjects  of  difference  between  the  Saxon  and 
British  Churches,  especially  the  time  of  keeping  Easter,  were 
debated  before  Oswin,  King  of  Northumberland.  .  Wilfrid 
was  the  principal  speaker  on  behalf  of  the  Saxon  Churches, 
and  Coleman,  Bishop  of  Lindisfarne,  for  the  British  customs. 
The  King  was  persuaded  to  approve  of  the  Roman  custom, 
but  the  Bishops  and  clergy  refused  to  comply.^ 

666.  This  year  the  King  nominated  Wilfrid,  Archbishop  of 
York,  who  went  to  Paris  and  was  consecrated  by  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Paris,  and  eleven  other  Bishops. ||  In  his  absence 
the  King  nominated  Cedd,  a  Briton,  to  the  same  office,  who 
was  consecrated  by  Wina,  Bishop  of  London,  who  had  been 

*  Hov.  ii.  454.  fl"  Life  St.  Pair.  89.  4:  Life  St.  Malacbi. 

§Bede,  iii.  25.  ||  Bede,  iii.  28. 

32 


370  INDEPENDENCE  OF  THE  SAXON 

consecrated  in  Gall,*  and  two  British  Bishops,  one  of  whom 
was  Finnan.|  Wina  was  made  Bishop  of  Winchester,  660,| 
and  Bishop  of  London,  666.^  Wilfrid,  upon  his  return,  went 
into  Lichfield,  and  finally  to  Canterbury,  where  he  officiated  as 
Archbishop  until  Theodore's  arrival.  A.  D.  669,  Cedd  was 
translated  from  the  See  of  York  to  Lichfield,  and  Wilfrid  be- 
came his  successor. 

673.  On  the  death  of  Adeodatus,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
in  668,  Pope  Vitalian  succeeded  in  procuring  the  election  of 
Theodore,  an  Italian  Monk  of  good  repute,  to  that  See,  who 
exerted  all  his  influence  to  introduce  the  Roman  rites.  Du- 
ring his  Episcopate,  a  council  was  held  at  Hereford,  A.  D. 
673,  which  was  attended  by  the  King  in  person,  and  at  which 
Theodore  presided.  At  this  time  it  was  decreed  that  what- 
ever had  been  canonically  determined  by  the  Fathers,  should 
be  observed  in  England. 

The  Pope  could  gain  nothing  from  what  was  done  by  this 
Council,  save  an  indirect  influence  he  might  obtain  under  the 
provisions  of  the  fourth  canon,  which  made  Monks  independ- 
ent of  their  Bishops  ;  whereas,  his  authority  was  efi'ectually 
cut  oflf  by  the  second,  sixth,  and  eighth,  by  which  no  Bishop 
could  execute  any  Episcopal  function  in  another  Diocese. 
Under  these  canons,  the  Pope  himself  could  not,  ca7ionically, 
perform  one  ministerial  act  in  England,  without  the  consent  of 
the  Bishop  in  whose  Diocese  it  was  to  he  performed.  Besides, 
the  eighth  canon  contains  what  we  should  now  regard  as  a 
pointed  rebuke  upon  his  pretended  supremacy ;  for  though  it 
had  no  immediate  application  except  to  England,  it  is  an  une- 
quivocal declaration  of  the  Bishops  composing  that  Council, 
that  they  knew  of,  and  acknowledged  no  superiority  among 
Bishops,  but  such   as  their  age   and  the  order  of  their  con- 


*  Bede,  iii.  7.     Hen.  Hunt.  ii.  191.     Sax.  Chron.  39. 

t  Bede,  iii.  28.    Sax.  Chr.  40.         :t  Sax.  Chron.  39.        §  Patr.  Brit.  67. 


CHURCH,  OF  THE  ROMISH.  371 

secration  conferred.  They  distinctly  recognized  that  princi- 
ple which  has  governed  the  Church  from  the  beginning,  and 
which  is  still  in  force  in  this  country. 

We  have  now  shown  conclusively,  that  the  British  Church 
was  not  originally  a  branch  of  the  Romish  Church,  that  the 
Anglo-Saxon  portion  of  it,  though  converted  by  missionaries 
from  Rome,  practically  denied  from  the  very  outset,  the  su- 
premacy of  the  Pope,  as  it  is  now  claimed,  and  hence  it  fol- 
lows, that  all  authority  which  the  Pope  ever  exercised  over 
that  Church,  at  any  subsequent  period,  was  usurpation  ;  and 
also,  that  when  the  Church  of  England  threw  off  the  Papal 
yoke,  she  only  did  that  which,  upon  every  principle,  she  had 
a  right  to  do — asserted  her  primitive  independence. 

678.  This  year  Egfrid,  King  of  Northumberland,  divided 
the  See  of  York  into  three  Dioceses,  and  had  three  Bishops 
ordained  for  them,*  without  consulting  Wilfrid  ;  at  which  he 
was  so  much  offended  that  he  appealed  to  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  and  procured  a  decree  for  his  restoration.  This  was 
the  first  instance  of  a  Saxon  Bishop  appealing  to  Rome,  but 
the  decree  was  so  little  regarded,  that  Wilfrid  was  deposed 
from  his  Bishopric  by  Theodore,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
(who,  it  will  be  remembered,  was  ordained  by  th^  Bishop  of 
Rome,)  and  imprisoned  by  Egfrid,  where  he  remained  several 
years.! 

704.  This  year  a  Synod  was  held  upon  the  river  Nid,  in 
Northumberland,  at  which  Birthwald,  ilrchbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, presided.  Here  the  decrees  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
were  read,  but  their  authority  was  denied  by  Bosa,  Bishop 
of  York,  and  John,  Bishop  of  Hexham.  The  difficulty  was 
finally  compromised  by  making  John  Archbishop  of  York,  and 
Wilfrid,  Bishop  of  Hexham-I     The  appeal  of  Wilfrid  was  the 

*Ang.  Sac.  i.  693. 

t  Diip.  Ecc.  Writ.  c.  viii.  128.     Crabb,  H.  C.  L.  20.     Ling.  H.  S.  C.  108. 

%  Hard.  Cone.  III.  182.5.    Ed.  Vit.  Wilf.  cc.  44—58,  in  Ling.  H.  A.  S.  C. 


372  INDEPENDENCE  OF  THE   SAXON 

first  appeal  from  England  to  Rome,  and  though  it  was  disal- 
lowed at  the  time,  laid  the  foundation  of  subsequent  appeals. 

709.  This  year  a  Synod  was  held,  at  which  sixty-Jive  dif- 
ferent tracts  of  country  were  ceded  to  the  Pope  forever.  Though 
the  Monks  had  been  made  independent  of  the  Bishops  in  673, 
they  were  not  independent  of  the  King.  To  accomplish  this, 
Egwin,  Bishop  of  Worcester,  who  had  espoused  the  cause  of 
Monasticism,  represented  that  he  had  seen  a  vision,  in  which 
the  Virgin  Mary  appeared  to  him  and  directed  the  Kings  of 
England  to  give  certain  lands  to  the  Pope,  to  enable  him  ta 
establish  monasteries  ;  whereupon  Constantine,  who  filled  the 
See  of  Rome,  wrote  to  Birthwald,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
desiring  him  to  use  his  influence  to  procure  the  grant  of  such 
lands  from  Kenred  and  Oiffa,  Kings  of  England.  Through 
the  conjoined  eftbrts  of  Egwin,  Constantine,  and  Birthwald, 
sixty-five  different  tracts  of  country  were  ceded  to  the  Pope  for- 
ever, for  the  purpose  of  establishing  monasteries,  which  grant 
was  confirmed  by  a  Synod  held  this  year.*  In  this  way,  the 
Pope  was  enabled  to  introduce  into  the  heart  of  England,  an 
army  of  Monks,  who  were  entirely  independent  of  the  civil 
and  ecclesiastical  authority  of  the  realm ;  and  thus  was  laid 
the  foundation  of  much  of  the  authority  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
afterwards  obtained  in  England. 

747.  By  the  third  canon  of  the  Council  of  Hereford,  A.  D. 
673,  the  monasteries  had  been  made  independent  of  their 
Bishops,  and  A.  D.  709,  virtually  independent  of  the  King. 
In  consequence  of  this,  they  had  become  the  resort  of  many 
besides  Monks,  so  that  they  were  filled  with  poets,  musicians, 
and  buflfoons  ;  and  so  great  had  this  evil  become,  that  the 
second  Council  of  Clofeshoch,  held  this  year,  found  it  neces- 
sary to  make  them  again  subject  to  the  inspection  of  the 
Bishops,  whose  duty  it  was  to  see  that  the  monasteries  were 

♦  Hard.  Con.  III.  p.  1S27.     Col.  Cone.  Brit.  T.  I.  Con.  709. 


CHURCH,  OF  THE  ROMISH.  373 

what  their  name  imports,  places  of  silence,  peace,  and  repose, 
the  abode  of  persons  occupied  by  spiritual  reading,  singing, 
and  praying.* 

787.  It  was  enacted  by  the  Councils  of  Northumberland 
and  Mercia,  that  the  Monks  should  not  choose  an  Abbot  for 
their  monastery,  without  the  consent  of  the  Bishop.  At  these 
last  Councils,  and  probably  at  the  preceding,  the  King  and 
his  nobles  were  present,  and  assented  to  the  canons. |  Sub- 
sequent to  this  time  we  hear  less  of  the  British  Church,  as 
distinct  from  the  Saxon-English  ;  yet  as  late  as  A.  D.  812, 
there  were  so  many  of  them  in  Wales,  Ireland,  and  Scotland, 
that  it  was  thought  necessary,  by  the  Council  of  Celchith, 
held  that  year,  to  prohibit  the  British  Bishops  from  performing 
any  Episcopal  acts  within  the  Dioceses  of  the  English  Bish- 
ops, even  with  their  consent.^  Councils  were  subsequently 
held  in  the  years  788,  800,  803,  822,  824,  903,  923,  928, 
944,  971,  977,  988.^  Nothing  was  done  in  these  Synods,  re- 
cognizing the  authority  of  the  Pope,  yet  it  is  evident  that  he 
was  gaining  ground  in  England,  and  that  many  of  his  claims 
were  acquiesced  in,  though  not  acknowledged.  The  great 
number  of  Monks  who  had  established  themselves  in  Eng- 
land, conduced  very  much  to  this  end.  But  the  Pope  did  not 
obtain  a  sure  foot-hold  in  this  country  until  the  Norman  con- 
quest, A.  D. 1066. 

William  I.,  1066 — 1095.  Having  shown  that  the  Saxon 
Church  was  legally  and  canonically  independent  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  up  to  the  time  of  the  conquest,  we  shall 
take  a  hasty  glance  at  such  acts  of  subsequent  times,  as  man- 
ifest a  similar  state  of  things.  It  is  necessary  to  remark, 
however,  that  the  Gallic  Church  to  which  William  belonged. 


*  Hard.  Cone.  III.  1953.  f  Hard.  Cone.  III.  2072. 

:|:Dup.  Ecc.  writ.  Cent.  ix.  p.  117. 
§  Hard.  Cone.  IV.  823—1265,  VI.  589—715. 
32* 


374  INDEPENDENCE  OF  THE  NORMAN 

had  not  remained  as  independent  of  the  Church  of  Rome  as 
the  English  ;  and  one  of  the  first  acts  of  this  King  was,  to 
request  the  Pope  to  send  a  legate  to  England,  to  assist  in  re- 
forming the  English  Church  ;  by  which  he  meant,  the  expul- 
sion of  the  English  clergy,  and  the  substitution  of  the  Nor- 
man.* William  immediately  separated  the  civil  and  ecclesi- 
astical departments  of  the  State,  thus  strengthening  the  power 
of  the  Pope.t  Appeals,  however,  were  still  made  by  the 
clergy  to  the  King,  and  not  to  the  Pope 4. 

William  II.,  1095—1100.  William  II.  found  it  impossi- 
Me  to  control  the  clergy  as  he  wished,  and  consequently  he 
contrived  to  keep  a  number  of  Sees  vacant.  At  the  time  of 
his  death  he  had  in  his  hands  one  Archbishopric,  and  four 
Bishoprics.^  Anselm  was  nominated  to  the  See  of  Canter- 
bury, by  WilHam.  He  acknowledged  the  authority  of  Pope 
Urban,  before  he  had  been  acknowledged  by  the  nation.  For 
this,  the  whole  body  of  Bishops,  at  Rockingham,  renounced 
the  allegiance  of  the  Archbishop. ||  He  was  afterwards  re- 
conciled to  the  King,  but  was  not  permitted  to  convoke  Sy- 
nods, nor  to  fill  up  vacant  Dioceses. 

Henry  L,  1100 — 1135.  Henry  restored  the  Saxon  laws,*I[ 
re-united  the  ecclesiastical  and  secular  branches  of  the  gov- 
ernment, and  required  the  Bishops  to  attend  the  Councils  of 
the  nation.**  Appeals  to  the  Pope,  however,  were  allowed,tt 
but  not  without  licence  from  the  King.;|:|  He  disputed,  but  re- 
linquished the  right  of  investing  Bishops  with  the  ring  and 
crosier.^^  He  denied  the  right  of  the  Pope  to  appoint  a  leg- 
ate in  England,  save  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  unless  by 

♦Ling.  Hist.  Eng.  \ol.  II.  p.  23. 

t  Char.  Rolls.  Ric.  II.  No.  5.     Wilk.  Leg.  Sax.  292. 

ifCrabb,  Hist.  Eng.  Com.  Law,  p.  49.  $  Ling.  H.  E.  II.  76. 

II  Ead.  Vit.  Ansl.  27.     Ling.  IT.  79.  IT  A-  S-  LL.  301. 

**LL.   Hen.  I.  c.  5.     Wilk.  301.  ft  LL- Hen.  I.  c.  5. 

:f:j:Ead.  112—116.  §§  Ead.  90.     Ling.  95. 


CHURCH,  OF  THE  ROMISH.  375 

request  of  the  King,*  and  maintained  his  ground  against  all 
opposition. 

Stephen,  1135 — 1154.  Nothing  important  transpired  in 
this  reign,  though  the  encroachments  of  the  Pope  were  con- 
tinued. 

Henry  II.,  1 1 54 — 1 1 89.  The  growing  power  of  the  Pope 
met  with  an  effectual  check  in  the  reign  of  Henry  XL,  who 
called  a  council  in  Clarendon,  A.  D.  1164,  composed  of  Arch- 
bishops, Bishops,  Abbots,  Lords,  Barons,  &c.,  at  which  six- 
teen canons  were  enacted,  which,  if  they  had  been  strictly 
adhered  to,  would  have  put  an  end  to  the  power  of  the  Pope 
in  England."!* 

By  these  canons  the  clergy  were  forbidden  to  leave  the 
realm  without  the  consent  of  the  King — were  made  amenable 
to  the  secular  courts — were  prohibited  from  making  appeals 
to  the  Pope.  It  was  also  required  of  them,  that  the  election 
of  Bishops  should  not  be  made  without  the  King's  consent — 
that  no  freeholder  should  be  laid  under  interdict,  without  an 
application  to  the  King,  or  Chief  Justice,  with  several  other 
regulations  of  a  similar  kind.J  These  canons  were  trans- 
mitted to  Rome,  when  Pope  Alexander,  in  full  Council, 
passed  a  solemn  condemnation  and  revocation  of  them ;  but 
notwithstanding  this,  they  were  confirmed  by  the  King,  Lords, 
and  clergy,  at  a  Council  in  Northampton,  A.  D.  1176,  in 
presence  of  the  Legate  of  the  Pope,  and  during  the  reign  of 
Henry  all  were  strictly  adhered  to,  except  that  which  required 
the  clergy  to  answer  for  their  crimes  in  the  civil  courts. § 

Richard  I.,  1189 — 1199,  did  nothing  touching  this  point  of 
our  inquiry. 

John,  1199 — 1216.  During  the  reign  of  this  inconstant 
and  imbecile  Prince,  Popery  raised  its  head  within  the  British 

*  Ead.  58,  US,  126.     Ling.  II.  1 13.  t  Mat.  Par.  100. 

t  Wilk.  LL.  A.  S.  321—324.  §  Crabb,  H.  E.  C.  L.  113. 


376  INDEPENDENCE  OF  THE  NORMA.N 

dominions,  by  consent  of  the  King.  At  first  John  made  a 
stand  against  the  encroachments  of  the  Pope,  and  refused  to 
receive  Stephen  Langton,  who  had  been  made  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  against  the  will  of  the  monarch,  in  opposition  to 
the  choice  of  the  Bishops  and  clergy,  and  the  election  of  the 
Monks.*  The  King,  however,  was  compelled  to  submit,  to 
swear  fealty  to  the  Pope,  to  pay  annually  a  thousand  marks  to 
the  Pope,  and  to  guarantee  the  payment  of  Peter-pence, 
which  then  amounted  to  about  £200.1 

Henry  III.,  1216 — 1272.  During  the  long  reign  of  this 
monarch,  the  power  of  the  Pope  was  at  its  height  in  England, 
and  the  oppressions  of  the  clergy  almost  past  endurance. 
The  King,  warned  by  the  fate  of  his  predecessor,  acquiesced 
in  silence,  and  the  Barons  imitated  his  example.  But  the  op- 
position of  the  great  body  of  the  clergy  was  aroused.  They 
remonstrated  with  the  Pope,  they  complained  to  the  King, 
and  finally  drew  up  a  list  of  their  grievances,  sent  it  to  the 
Pope,  and  appealed  from  him  to  a  General  Council. ;|: 

Edward  L,  1272 — 1307.  In  the  reign  of  this  Prince 
was  commenced  a  series  of  laws,  which  eventually  over- 
turned the  whole  power  of  the  Pope  in  England.  He  would 
not  allow  the  Bishops  of  England  to  attend  a  General  Council, 
until  they  had  solemnly  promised  not  to  receive  the  papal 
benediction,  and  in  the  thirty-fifth  Edward  I.,  A,  D.  1306, 
the  statute  de  Asportatis  Religiosorum,^  was  enacted,  which 
forbid  the  carrying  of  any  ecclesiastical  property  out  of  the 
realm,  under  penalty  of  being  grievously  punished  for  such 
contempt  of  the  King's  injunction,  and  was  intended  to  anni- 
hilate the  custom  introduced  by  Nicholas,  in  the  preceding 
reign.  The  preamble  describes  the  taxes  as  laid  by  the 
Abbots,  but  the  statute  is  couched  in  such  terms  as  to  leave 


*  Mat.  Par.  222—245.     Ling.  III.  23,  24.  f  T-ing-  HI.  32,  33. 

:fLing.  III.  86—89.  §Stat.  Westm.  2.  c.  41. 


CHURCH,  OF  THE  ROMISH.  377 

no  room  for  the  Pope  to  interfere.*  Edward,  like  most  sove- 
reigns of  those  days,  when  he  wanted  money,  compelled  those 
who  had  it  to  contribute  to  his  necessities,  and  he  laid  heavy 
burdens  on  the  clergy.  They  appealed  to  the  Pope,  and  he 
issued  a  Bull,  A.  D.  1296,  forbidding  the  clergy  to  pay  such 
taxes,  and  excommunicating  those  who  should  lay  them.f 
But  Edward  had  both  the  disposition  and  ability  to  enforce 
his  will,  and  with  the  approbation  of  the  lay  peers,  the  whole 
body  of  clergy  were  outlawed,^  until  they  made  amends  to  the 
King. 

Edward  II.,  1307 — 1327.  The  long  disputed  boundary 
between  the  ecclesiastical  and  civil  judicatories,  had  been 
settled  during  the  reign  of  Edward  I.,  and  the  privileges  of 
the  clergy  in  criminal  trials  confined  within  much  narrower 
limits,  which  were  still  further  confined  by  the  statute  de  Arti- 
culi  Cleri,  enacted  in  the  ninth  Edward  II.,  A.  D.  1316,  by 
which  certain  canons  published  by  Boniface,  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  in  the  reign  oi  Jtlenry  ill.,  were  revoked.*^  By 
this  statute  the  King  was  invested  with  authority  to  reverse 
any  sentence  of  excommunication,  that  would  affect  his  own 
liberty  or  safety. 

Edward  III.,  1327 — 1377.  After  the  passage  of  the  statute 
de  Asportatis  Religiosorum,  in  the  reign  of  Edward  I.,  it  was 
usual  for  the  Abbeys  and  Priories  to  receive  provisions,  which 
they  disposed  of  to  persons  called  provisors,  when  they  sent 
the  money  annually  to  Rome.  To  put  a  stop  to  this,  a  statute 
was  passed  the  twenty-fifth  Edward  III.,  A.  D.  1351,  which 
declared  all  persons  who  purchased  such  provisions,  traitors 
and  outlaws,  which  was  also  confirmed  by  statutes  enacted  in 
1353  and  1364.11     An  ordinance  was  also  passed  the  fortieth 

*  Stat.  Realm,  I.  151.  f  Rym.  Foed.  11.  706.  :f  Ling^.  III.  202. 

§  Slat.  9  Ed.  II. 

II  Stat.  2.5,  Ed.  III.  St.  5,  c.  6,  and  St.  6,  c.  2.  27  Ed.  III.  St.  1,  c.  1. 
38  Ed.  III.  St.  1,  c.  4.     St.  2,  c.  1. 


378  INDEPENDENCE  OF  THE  NORMAN 

Edward  III.,  A.  D.  1366,  making  it  criminal  to  carry  the 
contributions  called  "  Peter-pence,"  out  of  the  kingdom.* 
This  year,  it  was  also  declared  by  the  King,  Lords,  and  Pre- 
lates, that  the  donation  which  John  had  pretended  to  make  to 
the  Pope,  was  illegal  and  void,  and  that  every  person  appealing 
to  the  court  of  Rome,  or  citing  another  to  appear  there,  should 
be  held  as  a  traitor  and  outlaw. t  And  the  three  estates  bound 
themselves,  if  the  Pope  attempted  to  enforce  payment  of  the 
sums  due  him  for  Peter-pence,  that  they  would  resist  him  to 
the  utmost  of  their  ability.  It  was  also  asserted  in  this  reign, 
that  the  Pope  could  not  invest  the  Bishops  with  their  tempo- 
ralities, and  that  these  must  be  given  by  the  King.| 

Richard  II.,  1377 — 1399.  These  laws  being  found  in- 
sufficient to  prevent  the  transportation  of  ecclesiastical  prop- 
erty to  Rome,  a  law  was  passed  the  third  Richard  II.,  A.  D. 
1379,  subjecting  all  persons  guilty  of  making  gifts  of  ecclesi- 
astical property  to  the  court  of  Rome,  or  of  sueing  out  any 
process  irom  it,  to  forfeiture  ot  property,  imprisonment,  and 
sometimes  death. ^  Before  the  passage  of  this  last  act,  the 
Lords,  Commons,  and  Prelates,  had  pledged  themselves  to 
stand  by  the  laws  of  the  country,  against  the  Pope  and  his 
adherents,  in  the  cases  specified. || 

Henry  IV.,  1399 — 1413.  Papal  interference  was  still  fur- 
ther prohibited  by  statute,  second  Henry  IV.,  A.  D.  1400,  which 
made  all  persons  guilty  of  buying  bulls  of  exemption  from 
the  Pope,  or  who  brought  them  into  the  kingdom,  liable  to  the 
same  penalties  which  had  been  made  against  provisors.H 

Henry  V.,  1413 — 1422.     By  statute-passed  1st  Henry  V. 

*  Stowe,  Chron.  461.     Fab.  40,  Ed.  HI. 
t  Rot.  Pari.  II.  289,  290. 

4:  Spelm.  Cone.  ii.  435.     Rym.  Foed.  in  various  places. 
§  Stat.  3  R.  II.,  c.  3 ;  7  R.  IL,  c.  12 ;   12  R.  II.,  c.    15  ;  13  R.    II.,   c. 
2;  16  R.  IL,  c.  5. 

II  Ling.  IV.,  186.  IT  2  H.  IV.,  cc.  3,  4.     Stat.  Real.  II.  121,  122, 


CHURCH,  OF  THE  ROMISH.  379 

A.  D.  1413,  aliens  were  prohibited  from  holding  benefices 
in  England,  except  in  case  of  Priors,  and  they  were  required 
to  obtain  sureties  for  their  obedience  to  the  laws  of  the  realm.* 

Henry  VI.,     1422—1452.     Edward  IV.,   1452—1483. 

Richard  III.,  1483—1485.     Henry  VII.,    1485—1509. 

The  laws  that  had  been  enacted  under  former  sovereigns 
were  sufficient,  had  they  been  put  in  force,  but  the  civil  dis- 
cords and  the  wars  abroad,  which  distracted  the  kingdom 
during  the  reigns  of  these  princes,  left  them  little  time  to  look 
after  the  Church.  Consequently,  all  the  old  abuses  were  re- 
vived, and  perhaps  the  Pope  had  never  greater  influence  in 
England,  than  at  the  accession  of  Henry  VIII. 

Henry  VIIL,  1509 — 1547.  Upon  Henry's  accession  to 
the  throne  of  England,  he  manifested  no  disposition  to  inter- 
fere with  the  claims  of  the  Pope,  and  it  was  not  until  the 
twenty-first  year  of  his  reign  that  he  made  war  upon  the  pa- 
pal usurpations.  This  year,  a  statute  was  enacted,!  regulating 
the  fees  in  the  ecclesiastical  courts,  and  abolishing  pluralities. 
The  carrying  of  property  to  Rome  was  prohibited  by  severer 
penalties. I  The  statutes  against  foreign  jurisdiction  passed  in 
the  reigns  of  Edward  I.  and  III.,  and  of  Richard  II.  and 
Henry  IV.,  were  re-enacted,  enlarged,  and  enforced,  by  se- 
verer penalties.^  The  election  of  Bishops,  the  publication  of 
new  canons,  and  other  similar  matters,  were  also  regulated, || 
until  the  power  of  the  Pope  in  England  was  completely  over- 
turned and  annihilated. 

This  brief  view  of  the  legislation  of  the  Anglo-Norman 
Church  and  nation,  proves  most  unanswerably,  that  there  never 
was  a  time,  even  under  the  reign  of  the  Norman  princes, 


*  1  H.  v.,  c.  7,  and  2  H.  V.,  St.  1.         f  Stat.  21  H.  VIIL,  cc.  5,  6,  13. 
t  Stat.  23  H.  VIIL,  cc.  6,  20.     32  H.  VIIL,  c.  45. 
§  Stat.  24  H.  VIIL,  c.  12.     25  H.  VIIL,  c.  19,  etc. 
il  Stat.  25  H.  VIIL,  c.  19,  etc. 


380  ANGLO-NORMAN    CHURCHMEN. 

when  the  Pope  could  legally  and  canonically  exercise  the 
powers  he  claimed  in  England,  and  hence,  though  his  exac^ 
tions  and  usurpations  were  from  time  to  time  submitted  to, 
and  his  alliance  frequently  courted,  the  nation  was  at  liberty 
to  throw  off  his  allegiance  at  any  moment  it  saw  fit  It  would 
also  be  easy  to  show,  that  during  this  whole  period,  there 
were  leading  men  in  the  English  Church  who  made  bold  stand 
not  only  against  the  usurpations,  but  also  against  the  corrup- 
tions of  that  Church.  Even  Archbishop  Dunstan,  in  many 
things  subservient  to  the  Pope,  did  not  hesitate  to  set  at  de- 
fiance the  papal  mandate,  when  he  deemed  it  unjust  or  im- 
proper, A.  D.  961.*  And  Alfric  Puttock,  Archbishop  of  York, 
from  1023  to  1050,  openly  impugned  the  doctrine  of  transub- 
stantiation.  In  his  "  Sermon  to  be  spoken  to  the  people  at 
Easter,  before  they  receive  the  holy  housel,"  (communion,) 
he  teaches  doctrines  that  would  now  be  considered  orthodox  by 
sound  theologians.!  In  the  next  century,  Gilbert  Foliath,  con- 
secrated Bishop  of  Hereford,  1 148, translated  to  London,  1 163, 
died,  11 87,  set  at  defiance  the  papal  authority,  and  though  twice 
excommunicated  by  the  Pope,  paid  no  regard  to  the  thunders 
of  the  Vatican. I  Contemporary  with  Foliath,  was  Ormin,  the 
poet,  whose  works  present  us  with  the  purest  English,  and 
the  purest  doctrines  of  that  age.§  The  next  century  was  ren- 
dered famous  by  Robert  Grostete,  or  Greathead,  Bishop  of 
Lincoln,  from  1234  to  1258.  In  1247,  a  demand  was  made 
by  the  Pope  for  six  thousand  marks,  (about  je50,000,)  and  he 
had  the  courage  to  refuse  to  levy  it  until  he  had  the  sense  of 
the  nation  upon  it.  He  visited  Rome,  and  protested  against 
its  corruptions,  before  the  Pope  and  Cardinals.     After  his  re- 


*  Ling.  H.  A.  Sax.  Ch.  240. 

fElfric's  Sermon,  in  Peiheram's  Hist.  Sk.  A.  S.  Lit.  p.  33.     See  also, 
Ecc  Const,  about  lUoO,  Wilk.  LL.  A.  S.  p.  159. 

t  ]\Jat.  Par.  99—145.  §  Ear.  Eng.  Poets,  N.  Y.  R.  IX.,  392. 


THE  ENGLISH  REFORM  A.TION  CANONICAL.  381 

turn,  the  Pope  again  tried  his  courage  by  collating  an  Italian 
youth  to  a  vacant  Canonry  in  the  Cathedral  of  Lincoln.  But 
Grostete  was  inflexible.  He  set  at  naught  the  Pope's  com- 
mands, for  which  he  was  excommunicated.  But  the  thunder- 
bolt fell  harmless  at  his  feet,  and  he  died  in  peaceful  posses- 
sion of  his  See.*  Other  examples  of  a  similar  nature  occur, 
but  these  are  amply  sufficient  to  show  that  many  of  the  clergy 
asserted  that,  in  their  writings,  to  which  they  assented  in  their 
legislative  capacities.  It  remains  now  simply  to  show,  that 
the  clergy  consented  to  the  Reformation  individually,  as  well 
as  collectively,  which  will  be  done  in  the  next  chapter. 


CHAPTER  XXIX. 

THE  ENGLISH   REFORMATION  CANONICAL. 

We  have  already  seen,  that  every  Church  is,  in  fact,  inde- 
pendent of  every  other  Church,  and  that  the  Bishops  of  any 
province,  are  independent  of  those  in  every  other  province. 
Consequently,  the  Bishops  and  clergy  of  any  one  province, 
with  the  consent  of  the  laity,  have  the  right  to  make  any  reg- 
ulations for  the  government  of  their  own  branch  of  the  Church, 
not  inconsistent  with  Apostolical  organization  and  order. 
That  this  was  done  by  the  English  Reformers,  will  be  evident 
from  a  brief  survey  of  the  manner  in  which  they  conducted 
the  Reformation. 

In  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  very  little  opposition  was  made 
by  any  of  the  clergy,  to  an  assertion  of  the  Churches  indepeu' 
dence,  which  was  all  that  was  then  proposed,  and  very  few 
deprivations  were  made.     Even  under  the  reign  of  Edward 

*  Le  Bas  Life  Wick.  pp.  79—84.     Mat.  Par.  pp.  400—918. 
33 


382  BISHOPS  DEPRIVED  BY   EDWARD  AND  MARY. 

VI.,  very  few  of  the  clergy  made  any  objection  to  the  reforma- 
tion of  doctrine  and  discipline^  which  was  then  brought  about. 
A  few  Bishops,  however,  were  deprived  in  the  reign  of  Ed- 
ward ;  as,  Bonner,  of  London  ;*  Gardiner,  of  Winchester  ;t 
Heath,  of  Worcester ;  and  Day,  of  Chichester  \\  for  non- 
conformity to  the  laws  of  the  land  ;  and  Tunstall,  of  Dur- 
ham, on  the  alteration  of  his  Diocese.  These  were  all  re- 
stored upon  the  accession  of  Mary.§  Those  deprived  by 
Mary,  were,  Cranmer  and  Holgate,  Archbishops  of  Canter- 
bury and  York  ;  and  Bishops,  Taylor,  of  Lincoln  ;  Hooper,  of 
Worcester ;  Harley,  of  Hereford  ;  Ferrar,  of  St.  David's ; 
Bush,  of  Bristol ;  Bird,  of  Chester  ;||  Scorey,  of  Chichester  ; 
Coverdale,  of  Exeter ;  and  Ridley,  of  London.TI  That  is, 
Jive  were  restored  and  eleven  deprived,  making  sixteen,  or  a 
majority  of  the  twenty-six  Dioceses.  All  this  was  done  by 
Mary,  before  she  attempted  to  restore  the  Popish  religion. 
Nor  even  then  did  she  attempt  to  restore  the  Romish  practices 
hy  authority  of  the  CJiurch,  but  merely  hy  vote  of  Parliament. 
The  Reformation  in  the  time  of  Edward,  was  brought  about 
by  THE  CLERGY,  convcncd  in  Synod,  and  approved  by  the  laity 
in  Parliament.  In  the  reign  of  Mary,  it  was  arrested  by  an 
interference  of  the  State,  without  convening  a  Synod  or  con- 
sulting the  clergy.  Consequently,  when,  in  the  reign  of  Eliz- 
abeth, this  unlawful  interference  was  withdrawn,  the  Church 
became  at  once,  legally  and  canonically,  what  it  was  in  the 
reign  of  Edward. 

At  the  accession  of  Elizabeth,  or  immediately  after,**  nine 

*  Burnet,  vol.  II.  Par.  1,  p.  1G6.  f  lb.  p.  216.  :j:  Ih.  p.  266. 

§  Burnet,  Hist.  Ref.  ii.  Ann.  1553,  vol.  III.,  p.  314. 

II  Lingard,  Hist,  of  Eng.,  vol.  VII.,  143.  Rym.  Foed.  xv.  370,  371. 
The  successors  of  all  these  but  Cranmer,  were  consecrated  while  the  Pro- 
testant Bishops  were  in  possession  of  their  Sees,  and  hence,  upon  primi- 
tive principles,  were  uncanonical  and  schismatical.     Ling.  VII.,   143. 

1[  Lingard,  VII.,  293.         **  Slrype,  Eliz.  p.  154.     Linds.  Vind.  p.  xxvi. 


BISHOPS  DEPRIVED  BY   ELIZABETH.  383 

Dioceses,  viz.,  Canterbury,  Norwich,  Chichester,  Hereford, 
Salisbury,  Rochester,  Gloucester,  Oxford,  and  Bangor,  were 
vacant,  by  the  death  of  the  incumbents.  After  the  enactment 
of  the  act  of  Uniformitrj,  in  the  first  year  of  Elizabeth,  Kitch- 
en, Bishop  of  Llandaff,  took  the  oath  of  supremacy  and  con- 
formed. About  the  same  time,  the  oath  of  supremacy  was 
tendered  to  fifteen  other  Bishops,  who  refused  to  take  it,  and 
were  therefore  deprived  of  their  Sees.  Of  these,  six,  Tun- 
stall,  of  Durham  ;  Morgan,  of  St.  David's  ;  Ogilthorp,  of 
Carlisle  ;  White,  of  Winchester ;  Baines,  of  Lichfield  and 
Coventry ;  and  Holy  man,  of  Bristol,  died  before  their  places 
were  filled ;  and  three,  Scot,  of  Chester  ;  Goldwell,  of  St. 
Asaphs  ;  and  Pate,  of  Worcester,  abandoned  their  Sees  and 
left  the  kingdom.  The  remaining  severi,  Heath,  of  York  ; 
Bonner,  of  London  ;  Thirlby,  of  Ely ;  Bourne,  of  Bath  and 
Wells ;  Turberville,  of  Exeter  ;  Watson,  of  Lincoln  ;  and 
Pool,  of  Peterborough  ;  lived  and  died  in  England,  but  never 
attempted  to  exercise  any  Episcopal  functions.  Of  these 
seven, ybwr  held  places  from  which  Protestant  Bishops  had 
been  illegally  and  uncanonically  ejected  by  Mary ;  viz.,  Bon- 
ner, of  London,  from  which  Ridley  had  been  deprived  ;  Tur- 
berville, of  Exeter,  from  which  Coverdale  had  been'  deprived  ; 
Bourne,  of  Bath  and  Wells,  from  which  Barlow  had  been 
deprived  ;  and  Heath,  of  York,  from  which  Holgate  had  been 
deprived.* 

We  have,  therefore,  in  the  foregoing  list,  twenty-six  Dio- 
ceses, fifteen  of  which,  at  the  time  of  the  Consecration  of 
Protestant  Bishops  under  Elizabeth,  had  become  vacant  by 
death.  The  incumbents  of  three  had  abandoned  their  Sees  ; 
the  incumbents  of  four  held  places  from  which  Protestant 
Bishops  had  been  unlawfully  and  uncanonically  deprived  by 
Mary,  either  because  "  they  were  married,"  or  "  had  been 
consecrated  according  to  the  Ordinal  of  Edward  VL  ;"t  and 

*  Lind.  Vinci,  pp.  xx — xxviii.  f  Lingard,  VII.,  143. 


384        CONFORMITY  OF  THE  CLERGY  UNDER  ELIZABETH. 

one,  Kitchen,  "of  LlandafF,  had  conformed.  In  the  fifteen 
vacant  Dioceses^  even  the  Romanist  will  not  deny  the  right  of 
Parker  to  ordain  Protestant  Bishops,  and  these,  with  Kitchen, 
constituted  a  large  majority  of  the  twenty-six  Dioceses.  Nor 
is  it  presumed  they  will  deny  the  right  to  fill  the  Sees  of  those 
who  had  gone  abroad.  And  if  they  assume  that  the  restora- 
tion of  the  Bishops  of  Winchester,  Durham,  London,  Worces- 
ter, and  Chichester,  by  Mary,  was  lawful,  (had  it  been  done 
canonically,)  because  they  had  been  deprived  under  Edward, 
then  it  was  lawful  for  Elizabeth  to  deprive  the  Bishops  of 
York,  London,  Exeter,  and  Bath  and  Wells,  for  the  same  rea- 
son. Hence,  then,  at  least  twenty-five  of  the  twenty-six 
Bishoprics  were  legally,  properly,  and  canonically  filled  in  the 
first  years  of  Elizabeth,  with  Protestant  Bishops. 

Among  the  minor  clergy,  the  case  was  widely  different ; 
for,  as  appears  by  a  calculation  made  at  the  time,  out  of  nine 
thousand  four  hundred  ecclesiastical  persons  in  the  land,  only 
one  hundred  and  seventy-seven  left  their  places,  and  of  these, 
only  eighty  were  Rectors  of  Churches.*  Hence  it  follows, 
that  an  immense  majority  of  the  clergy  of  the  English  Church 
consented  to  the  Reformation.  And  all  the  acts  of  the  clergy 
in  Synod,  both  in  the  reigns  of  Edward  and  Elizabeth,  were 
submitted  to,  and  approved  by  the  King  and  Parliament,  so 
that  every  act  of  Reformation  was  performed  upon  strictly  ca- 
nonical and  legal  principles.  It  may,  therefore,  be  said,  with 
great  propriety,  that  the  Reformed  Church  of  England  was  not 
another,  but  the  same  Church ;  though  reformed,  its  identity, 
as  a  Church,  was  not  afTected.  The  Reformed  Church  of 
England  is,  therefore,  the  Old  Catholic  Church  of  that  coun- 
try.    Consequently,  all  those  who,  in  England,  refuse  to  unite 

*  Strype,  Eliz.  p.  73.  Camden,  47.  There  were  six  Abbots  and  Ab- 
besses, twelve.  Deans,  twelve  Archdeacons,  fifteen  heads  of  Colleges,  and 
fifty  Prebendaries.  In  Ireland,  a  still  smaller  number  left  their  places. 
(Lindii.  Vindic.  cxix.) 


ROMISH   SCHISM   IN  ENGLAND.  385 

with  it,  but  go  off  and  establish  another  altar,  and  build  another 
Church,  are,  upon  Apostolical  and  primitive  principles,  schis- 
matics. This  conclusion  is  as  applicable  to  the  Romanist  as 
to  any  other  dissenter.  Their  plea  of  submission  to  the  Pope 
can  not  save  them  from  the  dilemma,  (1,)  because  he  has  no 
rightful  jurisdiction  in  England,  and  (2)  because  it  was  not  the 
original  ground  taken,  being  an  after  thought  put  into  their 
heads  by  the  Pope  and  his  emissaries.  Elizabeth  succeeded 
to  the  crown  of  England,  Nov.  17,  1558.  As  early  as  1562, 
the  various  Dioceses  were  filled  with  Protestant  Bishops,  and 
no  Bishop  was  allowed  to  execute  any  function  of  his  office 
within  the  realm,  without  first  takiirg  the  oath  of  supremacy. 
Consequently,  no  Romish  Bishop  could  execute  the  duties  of 
his  office  within  that  kingdom.  But  notwithstanding  this, 
Pope  Pius  IV.  seems  never  to  have  abandoned  the  idea  of 
regaining  Elizabeth  and  the  Church  of  England  to  the  See  of 
Rome  ;*  but  his  successor,  Pius  V.,  considered  the  caution  of 
his  predecessor  as  a  dereliction  of  duty.  "  In  the  spring  of 
1569,  he  sent  Dr.  Nicholas  Morton,  who  had  been  a  preben- 
dary of  York,  under  Mary,  into  the  northern  counties  of  Eng- 
land, with  the  title  of  Apostolical  Penitentiary.  The  object 
of  his  mission  appears  to  have  been  to  impart  to  the  [Roman] 
Catholic  Priests,  as  from  the  Pope,  those  faculties  and  that 
jurisdiction  which  they  could  no  longer  receive  in  a  regular 
manner  from  their  Bishops.     Camden  says,  that  he  urged  the 

northern  men  to  rebellion Of  his  activity  in  promo^ 

ting  the  insurrection,  there  can  be  little  doubt."|  On  the 
twenty-fifth  of  February,  1570,  the  Pope  issued  a  bull  of  ex- 
communication against  Elizabeth,  pretending  to  put  her  out  of 
the  pale  of  the  Church,  assuming  to  depose  her  from  the 
crown,  to  absolve  her  subjects  from  all  allegiance  to  her,  and 
requiring  all  the  faithful  to  withdraw  from  her,  under  pain  of 

*  Lingard,  VIII. ,  39.  t  Lingard,  VIII.,  40. 

33* 


386      SEPARATION  OF   THE  ENGLISH  CHURCH   FROM  ROME. 

excommunication.  A  copy  of  this  bull  was  affixed  to  the 
gates  of  the  Bishop  of  London,  on  the  fifteenth  of  May,  1570, 
and  other  copies  were  circulated  through  the  kingdom.  The 
more  intelligent  and  liberal  minded  of  the  Romanists  regretted 
the  act,  and  considered  it  as  "  an  imprudent  and  cruel  meas- 
ure,"* but  it  evidently  had  its  effect  upon  the  common  people, 
and  necessarily  compelled  all  Romanists  to  separate  from  the 
Church  of  England,  and  hence  the  English  Romanists  may 
properly  be  said  to  have  separated  from  the  Reformed  Church, 
in  the  twelfth  of  Elizabeth,  and  thus,  at  that  time,  to  have 
formed  a  sect. 

The  other  sectaries  and  schismatics  in  England  separated 
from  the  Church  at  a  much  later  period,  and  hence  a  con- 
sideration of  their  history  does  not  fall  in  with  the  design  of 
this  work.  But  some  of  the  arguments  by  which  they  attempt 
to  justify  their  separation,  deserve  to  be  considered,  since,  if 
true,  they  prove  that  the  English  Church,  at  the  time  of  the 
Reformation,  abandoned  the  fundamental  principles  of  Apos- 
tolic organization  and  order,  and  was  not,  therefore,  legally 
and  canonically  reformed.  The  arguments  are  mainly  two, 
each  of  which  will  be  considered  separately. 

First,  it  is  claimed  that  "  the  Church  of  England  separated 
from  the  Church  of  Rome,  and,  therefore,  others  may  separate 
from  the  Church  of  England."  This  assumption  is  false  in 
two  respects,  for  (1)  it  would  not  follow,  if  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land separated  from  the  Church  of  Rome,  that  individuals 
might  separate  from  the  Church  of  England.  The  two  cases 
are  utterly  unlike,  and  we  can  not  reason  from  one  to  the  other. 
But  (2)  the  Church  of  England  did  not  separate  from  the 
Church  of  Rome.  The  Church  of  England  did  no  more  than 
assert  her  original  and  primitive  independence — an  independ- 
ence that  she  had  enjoyed  for  more  than  five  centuries  unmo- 

*  Lingard,  VHT.,  56. 


APOSTOLICITY  OF  THE  ENGLISH  REFORMATION.  387 

lested,  and  which  for  nine  centuries  more,  she  had  continually 
attempted  to  defend.  The  Reformation  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land was  simply  a  return  to  primitive  truth  and  order.  She 
separated  from  no  one.  She  excommunicated  no  one,  and  it 
was  not  until  the  twelfth  of  Elizabeth  that  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  presumed  to  cut  himself  off  from  her  communion,  for 
that  was  all  that  his  pretended  bull  of  excommunication  could 
effect. 

But,  second,  it  is  said,  that  the  Reformers  of  the  Church  of 
England,  and  the  Church  of  England  herself,  gave  up,  at  the 
time  of  her  Reformation,  one  of  the  fundamental  principles  of 
Apostolic  organization  and  order — the  necessity  of  Bishops 
to  the  due  organization  of  the  Church.  This  objection,  as 
generally  presented,  divides  itself  into  two  branches — that  the 
English  reformers  believed,  and  the  Church  of  England  taught, 
(1,)  that  Episcopacy  did  not  exist  by  Divine  right,  that  is,  they 
believed  it  to  be  a  human  institution  ;  and,  (2,)  that  Bishops 
and  Priests  are  not  different  orders  of  clergy.  Now  if  these 
charges  are  true,  the  English  Reformers  gave  up  one  funda- 
mental principle  of  primitive  order,  and  were,  in  fact,  Presby- 
terian. And  if  the  Church  of  England  is  Presbyterian,  then 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  others  have  a  right  to  separate 
from  her ;  for  those  who  have  themselves  separated  from 
Apostolic  order,  can  not  complain  if  others  follow  their  exam- 
ple. In  proof  of  these  positions,  our  opponents  are  wont  to 
quote  the  opinions  of  Cranmer,  and  sundry  others  who  were 
among  the  leading  Reformers  of  the  English  Church,  in  which 
some  of  them  say  something  to  the  purpose  for  which  they 
are  quoted.  We  shall,  therefore,  inquire  under  what  circum- 
stances, and  for  what  purpose,  the  opinions  which  are  quoted 
in  support  of  the  above  positions,  were  expressed,  and  what 
and  how  much  they  prove. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind,  that  all  the  Reformers  of  the  Eng- 
lish Church  had  been  educated  in  the  Romish  faith.     A  com- 


388       CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  ENGLISH  REFORMATION. 

plete  change  of  sentiment  could  not  be  wrought  in  a  day  or  a 
year.  This  change  must  be  gradual ;  unless,  as  often  hap- 
pens, it  goes  from  one  extreme  to  the  other.  But  such  was 
not  the  case  with  the  English  Reformers,  and  evidence  of 
their  progress  appears  in  the  productions  of  the  various  epochs 
of  the  Reformation.  From  this,  it  will  be  seen,  that  the  date 
of  a  document  cited  as  evidence  on  this  head,  is  most  mate- 
rial. If  a  given  document  contains  the  opinion  of  Cranmer 
and  others,  who  were  afterwards  Reformers,  while  they  were 
Romanists,  then  to  quote  that  as  evidence  of  what  the  Re- 
formers thought,  is  gross  misrepresentation. 

To  show  how  these  various  documents  came  to  be  produced, 
and  that  our  readers  may  see  how  far  they  are  pertinent  to 
prove  the  opinions  of  the  Reformers,  we  shall  allude  to  the 
manner  in  which  the  English  Church  was  reformed.  The 
first  distinguishing  feature  of  the  English  Reformation  is,  that 
it  was  the  calm,  dispassionate,  and  deliberate  act  of  the  most 
pious  and  learned  among  the  clergy,  approved  by  the  great  body 
of  the  laity,  while  in  other  countries  it  was  usually  the  act  of 
some  rash  and  head-strong  individual,  opposed  to  the  body  of 
the  clergy.  The  second  is  the  mode  in  which  they  conduct- 
ed their  efforts  for  reformation.  This  we  can  not  better  state, 
than  in  the  language  of  a  historian  of  those  days.  He  says  : 
"  First,  the  whole  business  they  were  to  consider,  was  divi- 
ded into  so  many  heads,  which  were  proposed  as  queries,  and 
these  were  given  out  to  the  Bishops  and  divines  ;  and  at  a 
prefixed  time,  every  one  brought  in  his  opinion  in  writing,  on 
all  th^  questions.* 

In  this  manner  all  questions  relating  either  to  faith  or  prac- 
tice, were  examined.  When  these  opinions  had  been  handed 
in,  the  authors  met  and  conferred  upon  their  points  of  difl'er- 
ence,  until  they  were  able  to  agree  upon  something  to  be  laid 


*Bur.  Hist.  Reformation,  vol.  I.  p.  372. 


INSTITUTION  OF  A  CHRISTIAN  MAN.  389 

before  the  convocation,  to  be  approved  by  that  body.*  One  of 
the  first  of  these  conferences  was  held  in  1537  or  1538,  at 
which  a  number  of  papers  were  drawn  up.  Two  of  these  papers 
have  been  preserved  by  Burnet.f  One  of  them  is  entitled, 
"  A  Declaration  made  of  the  functions  and  Divine  Institution 
of  Bishops  and  Priests."  This  paper  is  signed  by  Cranmer 
and  a  large  number  of  Bishops  and  divines,  and  contains  the 
following  passage  :  "  In  the  New  Testament  there  is  no  men- 
tion made  of  any  degrees  or  distinctions  in  orders,  but  only  of 
Deacons  or  ministers,  and  of  Priests  or  Bishops, "J 

The  Institution  of  a  Christian  Man  was  compiled  from  these 
papers,^  and  published  the  same  year.  This  book  contains 
the  paragraph  we  have  copied  from  the  foregoing  "  declara- 
tion," and  is  one  of  the  authorities  usually  cited  by  Anti- 
Churchmen.  With  how  much  fairness  it  can  be  thus  quoted, 
our  readers  can  judge,  when  we  tell  them,  that  this  book,  com- 
piled from  these  documents,  and  signed  by  Cranmer  and  thirty- 
six  of  the  most  learned  of  the  clergy,  established  the  Romish 
doctrine  of  "  Transubstantiation,  communion  in  one  kind,  ce- 
libacy of  the  clergy,  auricular  confession,  seven  sacraments, 


*Bur.  vol.  I.  Par.  1,  pp.  372—374. 

t  Hist.  Ref.  vol.  I.  Par.  2,  Add.  No.  1  and  4. 

X  The  Papists,  to  avoid  the  charge  of  having  created  a  new  ordc7-  in  the 
ministry,  contend  that  Bishops  and  Priests  are  of  the  same  order,  the  Pope 
alone  constituting  the  third  order.  This  point  was  hotly  debated  in  the 
Council  of  Trent.  On  the  part  of  the  Pope  it  was  contended,  that  all  ec- 
clesiastical authority  was  derived  from  St.  Peter,  who  alone  derived  his 
authority  from  Christ.  And  those  who,  with  the  Archbishops  of  Grenada 
and  Paris,  held  that  all  the  Apostles,  and  consequently,  all  Bishops,  derived 
their  authority  from  Christ,  were  told,  that  they  thus  took  away  the  au- 
thority of  the  Pope,  and  that  it  was  idle  to  pretend  that  the  Pope  was 
head  of  the  Church,  and  yet  to  hold  that  there  was  authority  in  the 
Church,  not  derived  from  him.     (Fra.  Paolo.  Hist.  Coun.  Tr.  L.  vii.) 

§Slrype,  Ann.  B.  1,  c.  41,  p.  315,  and  App.  No.  88. 


390  ERUDITION   OF  A  CHRISTIAN  MAN. 

and  purgatory.*  In  all  things  they  proved  themselves  staunch 
Papists,  save  in  the  single  item  of  the  Pope^s  supremacy,  and 
perhaps  the  subject  of  monastic  vows.  This,  therefore,  was 
the  opinion  of  these  men  as  Romanists,  not  as  Reformers,  and 
the  man  who  quotes  them  as  such,  is  either  too  ignorant  to 
write,  or  too  dishonest  to  be  trusted. 

The  next  document  in  point  of  chronology,  cited  to  prove 
the  Anti-Episcopal  notions  of  the  English  Reformers,  bears 
date  in  1540.  The  history  of  that  paper  is  as  follows.  In 
1539,  the  King  proposed  six  questions  to  the  clergy  relative 
to  points  of  doctrine  ;  in  answer  to  which,  they  asserted  the 
doctrines  of  "  Transubstantiation,  communion  in  one  kind,  ce- 
libacy of  the  clergy,  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  auricular  confes- 
sion," &c.t  Upon  these  answers  the  act  of  Parliament, 
called  "  the  bloody  bill,"  was  passed,  an  act  which  sent  Protes- 
tants and  Romanists  to  execution  upon  the  same  hurdle. 
The  complaints  under  this  act,  caused  a  new  commission 
to  be  issued  the  same  year,  to  re-examine  the  various  points  of 
disputed  doctrine.  Seventeen  questions  were  proposed  for 
consideration.  Those  who  wish  to  see  the  whole  paper,  will 
find  it  in  Burnet.J  That  summary  is  sufficient  to  show,  that 
these  men  were  then  Romanists,  and  hence  these  opinions 
are  no  evidence  of  what  they  thought  as  Reformers. 

The  next  paper  usually  cited  in  proof,  bears  date  1543,  and 
is  drawn  from  a  work  entitled,  "  The  Necessary  Erudition  of 
a  Christian  Man.'''  This  book  was  merely  revision  of  the  "  In- 
stitution," of  which  we  have  spoken, §  revised  and  corrected 
by  the  King.||     The  book  was  somewhat  enlarged,  and  the 

*  Strype,  Ann.  pp.  31 1,  315.      Bur.  Ref.  vol.  I.  Par.  2,  pp.  375—398. 
tStrype,  Ann.  B.  1,  C.  47,  pp.  361,  302. 

^Hist.  Ref.  vol.  T.  Par.  2,  pp.  25G— 303.  Strype,  B.  i.  p  357,  App.  No. 
III.  p.  30U. 

$  Strype,  p.  377. 

II  Bur.  Kef.  vol.  I.    Hallam,  Cons.  Hist.  Eng:.  vol.  I.  pp.  79, 110. 


AUTHORITATIVE   DOCUMENTS  OF  THE  REFORMATION.       39i 

doctrine  of  purgatory  omitted.  In  other  respects,  it  taught 
the  same  doctrines  as  the  Institution,  and  in  common  with 
that  asserted,  that  Bishops  and  Priests  were  of  the  same  or- 
der, and  this  is  the  last  we  hear  of  that  opinion.  With  this 
book,  published  five  years  before  the  death  of  Henry  VIII., 
and  seven  years  before  the  compilation  of  the  Book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer,  ends  the  chain  of  authorities  by  which  the  Re- 
formers of  the  English  Episcopal  Church  are  to  be  proved 
Presbyterian.  If,  therefore,  these  publications  are  pertinent 
to  prove  what  were  the  opinions  of  the  Reformers  on  one 
point,  they  are  pertinent  on  another,  and  if  they  prove  any- 
thing, they  prove  that  the  Reformers  of  the  English  Church 
believed  in  transubstantiation,  seven  sacraments,  sacrifice  of 
the  mass,  auricular  confession,  celibacy  of  the  clergy,  monastic 
voivs,  communion  in  one  kind;  they  prove  in  fact,  that  the 
English  Church  was  not  reformed,  and  that  it  is  still  Roman 
Catholic.  They  prove  this,  or  they  prove  nothing  to  the  pur- 
pose for  which  they  are  so  often  quoted. 

Having  examined  the  books  published  before  the  reign  of 
Edward  VI.,  usually  cited  to  prove  the  Presbyterianism  of  the 
English  Reformers,  we  shall  endeavor  to  ascertain  what  were 
the  opinions  of  the  Reformers  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  con- 
cerning THE  Church,  and  its  ministry ;  and  for  this  purpose, 
we  shall  only  quote  from  authoritative  documents,  published 
in  the  reign  of  Edward  and  Elizabeth.  Our  chief  authority 
shall  be  the  book  of  Common  Prayer.  It  will  be  borne  in 
mind,  that  a  distinct  recognition  of  any  principle,  or  point  of 
doctrine,  in  a  prayer,  is  conclusive  evidence  that  those  who 
composed  or  adopted  that  prayer,  believed  the  "principle"  so 
recognized,  to  be  certain  truth. 

The  Church.  "  Art.  19.  The  visible  Church  of  Christ  is 
a  Congregation  of  faithful  men,  in  the  which  the  pure  word  of 
God  is  preached,  and  the  sacraments  be  duly  ministered,  ac- 
cording to  Christ's  ordinance  in  all  those  things  that  of  ne- 
cessity are  requisite  to  the  same." 


3i2  DOCTRINES  OF  THE  PRAYER  BOOK. 

Of  the  Ministry.  "  Art.  23.  It  is  not  lawful  for  any 
man  to  take  upon  himself  the  office  of  public  preaching,  or 
ministering  the  sacraments  in  the  congregation,  before  he  he 
LAWFULLY  called  and  sent,  to  execute  the  same.  And  those 
we  ought  to  judge  lawfully  called  and  sent,  which  be  chosen 
and  called  to  this  work  hy  men  who  have  public  authority  given 
unto  them  in  the  congregation,  to  call  and  send  ministers  into 
the  Lord's  vineyard.''^ 

The  ministry  divinely  instituted.  Collect  at  the  ordi- 
nation of  a  Deacon. — "  Almighty  God,  who  by  Thy  divine 
Providence  hath  appointed  divers  orders  of  ministers  in  thy 
Church."  Collect  at  the  ordination  of  a  Priest. — "  Almigh- 
ty God,  giver  of  all  good  things,  who  by  Thy  Holy  Spirit 
hast  appointed  divers  orders  of  ministers  in  Thy  Church." 
Prayer  at  the  consecration  of  a  Bishop. — "  Almighty  God, 
giver  of  all  good  things,  who  by  Thy  Holy  Spirit  hast  ap- 
pointed divers  orders  of  ministers  in  Thy  Church." 

The  ministry  consists  of  three  orders.  Litany. — 
"  That  it  may  please  Thee  to  illuminate  all  Bishops,  Priests, 
and  Deacons,  with  true  knowledge  and  understanding  of  Thy 
word."  Collect  at  ordaining  a  Deacon. — "And  didst  inspire 
thine  Apostles  to  choose  into  the  order  of  Deacons,  the  first 
martyr,  Saint  Stephen,  with  others,  mercifully  behold  these 
Thy  servants,  now  called  to  the  like  office  and  administration." 
Collect  at  ordaining  a  Priest. — "  Mercifully  behold  these  Thy 
servants,  now  called  to  the  office  of  the  Priesthood."  Prayer 
at  the  consecration  of  a  Bishop. — "  Mercifully  behold  this  Thy 
servant,  now  called  to  the  work  and  ministry  of  a  Bishop.^* 
Litany  at  the  ordination  of  Deacons  or  Priests. — "  That  it 
may  please  Thee  to  bless  these  Thy  servants,  now  to  be  ad- 
mitted to  the  order  of  Deacons,"  [or  Priests.]  Litany  at  the 
ordination  of  a  Bishop. — "  That  it  may  please  Thee  to  bless 
this,  our  brother  elected,  [to  the  office  of  Bishop,]  and  to  send 
Thy  grace  upon  him."     Preface  to  the  Ordinal. — "  It  is  evi- 


DOCTRINES  OF  THE  PRAYER  BOOK.  393 

dent  unto  all  men,  diligently  reading  holy  Scripture  and  an- 
cient authors,  that  from  the  Apostles'  time  there  have  been 
these  orders  of  ministers  in  Christ's  Church — Bishops^ 
Priests,  and  Deacons." 

Bishops  superior  to  the  other  clergy.— This  follows 
from  the  above,  for,  if  God  has  "  appointed  divers  orders  of 
ministers  in  his  Church,"  the  different  kinds  of  ministers  so 
divinely  constituted  and  appointed,  of  necessity  belong  to  the 
"  divers  orders  ;"  and  the  first  order  must  be  superior  to  the 
second,  or  any  subsequent  order,  so  that  Bishops  must  be  su- 
perior to  every  other  order.  This  superiority  is  recognized 
throughout  the  whole  Liturgy.  Prayer  for  the  clergy  and 
people,  used  both  in  the  morning  and  evening  service. — "  Send 
down  upon  our  Bishops  and  other  clergy,  and  upon  the  con- 
gregations committed  to  their  charge,  the  healthful  spirit  of 
Thy  grace."  The  same  superiority  is  recognized  in  the  Lit- 
any, in  the  For7n  of  consecration  of  a  Bishop,  and  ordaining 
Priests  and  Deacons,  in  the  Order  of  confirmation,  in  the  Ru- 
bric in  the  communion  service,  in  the  thirtieth  article,  and  in 
numerous  other  places.  Indeed,  this  distinction  of  order  be- 
tween Bishops  and  Priests,  is  uniformly  kept  in  sight,  through- 
out the  Liturgy  and  Articles. 

Who  "lawfully  called  and  sent?" — "Art.  36.  The 
Book  of  consecration  of  Bishops,  and  ordaining  of  Priests 
and  Deacons,  as  set  forth  by  the  General  Convention  of  this 
Church,  in  1792,  [in  the  English  Prayer  Book,  lately  set  forth 
in  the  time  of  King  Edward  the  sixth,  with  which  the  Ameri- 
can Book  agrees  in  every  important  particular,  except  in  slight 
verbal  alterations,]  doth  contain  all  things  necessary  to  such 
consecration  and  ordering Whosoever  are  conse- 
crated or  ordered  according  to  said  form,  we  decree  all  such 
to  be  rightly,  orderly,  and  lawfully  consecrated  and  ordered.^' 
Preface  to  the  Ordinal,  established  by  the  foregoing  Article. — 
"  It  is  evident  unto  all  men,  diligently  reading  holy  Scripture 
34 


394  DOCTRINES  OF  THE  PRAYER  BOOK. 

and  ancient  authors,  that  from  the  Apostles'  time  there  have 
been  these  orders  of  ministers  in  Christ's  Church — Bishops, 
Priests,  and  Deacons.  Which  offices  were  evermore  had 
in  such  reverend  estimation,  that  no  man  might  presume  to 
execute  any  of  them,  except  he  vv^ere  first  called,  tried,  ex- 
amined, and  known  to  have  such  qualities  as  were  requisite 
for  the  same  ;  and  also  by  public  prayer,  with  imposition  of 
hands,  were  approved  and  admitted  thereto  hy  lawful  author- 
ity.''^ The  "  lawful  authority"  here  meant,  is,  of  course,  the 
authority  prescribed  by  the  Ordinal,  that  is,  the  Bishop.  We 
learn,  therefore,  from  the  foregoing,  what  were  the  opinions 
of  the  framers  of  our  Liturgy,  that  is,  of  the  Reformers  of 
the  English  Church,  as  reformers,  concerning  the  Church, 
and  its  ministry,  and  also  what  is  the  opinion  of  the  Church 
itself.     They  were  as  follows  ; — 

The  visible  Church  of  Christ  is  a  congregation  of  faith- 
ful men,  in  the  which  the  pure  word  of  God  is  preached,  and 
the  sacraments  be  duly  ministered,  according  to  Christ's  or- 
dinance ;  that  by  the  ordinance  of  Christ,  no  man  may  take 
upon  himself  the  office  of  public  preaching,  or  ministering 
the  sacraments,  before  he  is  lawfully  called  and  sent  to  do  the 
same  ;  that  by  the  same  ordinance,  the  ministry,  by  which  the 
word  is  to  be  preached  and  the  sacraments  administered,  is 
made  to  consist  of  three  distinct  orders,  called  Bishops, 
Priests,  and  Deacons  ;  that  these  three  orders,  so  divinely 
constituted,  have  existed  in  the  Church  of  Christ  from  the 
time  of  the  Apostles ;  that  by  the  same  authority  by  which 
these  three  orders  exist,  power  and  authority  to  call  and  send 
men  to  preach  the  word  and  administer  the  sacraments,  is 
vested  in  the  Bishop  alone. 

But  notwithstanding  the  certainty  of  this  conclusion,  there 
are  some  who  still  persist  in  urging  other  reasons,  to  prove  the 
very  things  we  have  so  clearly  disproved.  The  principal  of 
these  we  shall  mention.     Thus  it  is  said  : — 


PRACTICE  OF  THE  ENGLISH  REFORMERS.  395 

1.  That  "Dr.  Bancroft,  chaplain  to  Archbishop  Whitgift, 
[first]  divided  off  the  Bishops  from  the  body  of  the  Presby- 
ters, and  advanced  them  into  a  superior  order  by  divine  right, 
in  a  sermon  at  St.  Paul's  Cross,  January  1,  1588."  Those 
who  know  what  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  teaches,  know 
this  can  not  be  true  ;  but  all  may  not  know,  that  in  the  sermon 
referred  to,  there  is  not  one  word  on  the  subject* 

2.  That  "  those  who  had  been  ordained  in  foreign  Church- 
es, in  the  reign  of  Mary,  were  admitted  in  Elizabeth's  reign 
to  their  ministerial  offices  and  charges,  and  to  legalize  this, 
an  act  of  Parliament  was  passed  the  13th  Elizabeth,  allowing 
of  ordination  of  Presbyters  without  a  Bishop."  No  such  act 
was  ever  passed  by  the  British  Parliament.  The  act  referred 
to,  is  entitled.  An  Act  to  reform  certain  disorders  touching 
the  ministers  of  the  Church.f  The  first  section  enacts,  that 
every  minister  under  the  degree  of  Bishop,  who  had  received 
ordination  or  consecration  hi/  any  other  form  than  that  prescri' 
bed  by  the  Ordinal  of  Edward  VI.  should,  in  a  certain  limited 
time,  subscribe  to  the  articles  of  religion,  confessions,  &;c. 
&c.,)  prescribed  by  law,  and  in  default  thereof,  should  be 
deprived.  One  of  the  things  they  were  thus  required  to  sign, 
was  the  Preface  to  the  Ordinal.  The  second  section  of  the 
same  act  declares,  that  any  minister  who  teaches  or  preaches 
any  thing  contrary  to  those  articles,  shall  be  deprived,  and 
there  is  not,  in  the  whole  chapter,  one  word  about,  or  one  al- 
lusion to  ordination  by  Presbyters. 

3.  "  That  Archbishop  Grindal  commissioned  a  Presbyte- 
rian minister  to  preach  in  his  Diocese."  This  case  of  itself 
proves,  that  the  English  Church  did  not  allow  his  orders,  for 
if  it  had,  there  would  have  been  no  need  of  a  commission. 
Further,  for  this  very  act  and  other  irregularities,  the  Arch- 
bishop was  suspended..]: 

*  Const.  Hist.  Eng'.  vol.  I.  p.  504. 
t  Stat.  13  Eliz,  c.  1%  pp.  546,  547.  ^  Strype,  Life  Grind. 


396  CASE  OF  FOREIGN  CLERGYMEN. 

4.  "  That  ministers  from  abroad,  who  had  received  only 
Presbyterian  ordination,  were  received  in  their  ecclesiastical 
character  by  the  Reformers,  without  re-ordination.  "  These 
lists  usually  include  the  names  of  "  Calvin,  Knox,  Fagius, 
Bucer,  Tremellius,  Peter  Martyr,  John  ALasco,"  &c.  Of 
each  of  these  separately. 

Of  Calvin.  And  (1)  he  never  visited  England,  and,  there- 
fore, could  not  have  been  admitted  to  their  pulpits  ;  and  (2)  he 
never  was  in  Pries fs  orders*  and,  therefore,  could  not  have 
been  acknowledged  as  a  minister  of  Christ. 

Knox  was  Episcopally  ordained  in  the  Romish  Church, 
before  becoming  a  reformer,!  and  was,  therefore,  upon  the 
same  footing  with  the  rest  of  the  reformers. 

Fagius.  Of  Fagius,  little  is  known,  as  he  died  very  soon 
after  he  arrived  in  England.^ 

BucER  was  a  Dominican  Friar,  and  Episcopally  ordained, 
before  joining  the  reformers.^ 

Tremellius,  an  Italian  Monk,  was  Episcopally  ordained  a 
Priest,  before  becoming  a  reformer.  H 

Peter  Martyr  had  been  Episcopally  ordained  in  the  Ro- 
mish Church,  before  becoming  a  reformer, H 

John  ALasco  had  never  received  Episcopal  ordination, 
and  was  never  received  into  Episcopal  pulpits.  But  Edward 
and  Cranmer,  desirous  of  patronizing  eminent  reformers,  though 
they  did  not  adopt  Episcopacy,  issued  a  commission  authori- 
zing ALasco  and  four  other  foreigners,  to  preach  to  their 
countrymen,  in  certain  chapels  erected  for  the  purpose. 

♦  Beza,  Life  Cal.  Spon,  Hist.  Geneva,  L.  iii.  p.  243,  cited  in  Bayle, 
Hist,  and  Crit.  Diet.  vol.  II.  p.  264.  Leti,  Hist.  Gen.  vol.  III.  p.  41,  in 
Bayle,  ubi.  sup.     Maitnbouig,  Hist.  Calvinism,  p.  64,  lb. 

t  Rob.  Scot.  vol.  I.  p.  238.  Biog.  Univers.  vol.  XXII.  p.  499.  Encyc. 
Am.  vol.  VII.  p.  341. 

XBnx.  Hist.  Ref.  vol.  II.  p.  116.  §  Encyc.  Am.  vol.  IT.  p.  206. 

II  Bossuet,  Hist.  Prot.  cit.  in  Trav.  Irish  Gent.  p.  241,  n.  Strype,  Ann.  B. 
ii.  c.  18,  p.  387. 

IT  Encyc.  Am.  vol.  VIII.  p.  312.     Bow.  LeU.  vol.  I.  p.  204. 


NECESSITY  OF   CHRISTIAN  UNITV 


397 


Thus  much  for  this  charge,  which  our  readers  will  see  by 
this  time,  is  wholly  unfounded.  The  Episcopal  Church  never 
has  renounced  the  divine  institution  of  Episcopacy,  nor  has  she 
ever  acknowledged  the  orders  of  any  one  who  had  not  been 
Episcopally  ordained. 


CHAPTER  XXX. 

UNITY     OF    THE     CHURCH. 

We  should  not  feel  that  we  had  discharged  our  full  duty, 
were  we  to  bring  it  to  a  close,  without  calling  attention  to  a 
consideration  of  some  practical  duties,  growing  out  of  this 
subject.  Now  it  can  never  be  a  question  of  small  moment, 
to  the  humble  follower  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  "  what  is  that 
Church  which  my  Saviour  hath  established  ?  and  what  is  my 
duty  towards  it  ?" 

The  first  of  these  questions  has,  we  trust,  been  answered 
on  the  preceding  pages  ;  the  last,  which  is  one  of  practical 
religion,  it  can  not  be  diiBcult  to  decide.  For  if  the  Apostles 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  acting  in  his  name  and  by  his  au- 
thority, have  established  a  Church  on  earth,  every  good 
Christian  must  desire  to  belong  to  that  Church.  For  if  there 
be  but  one  fold  and  one  shepherd,  and  if  this  fold  be  the 
Church,  it  is  clear  there  can  be  but  one  Church.  Or  if  the 
Church  be  one  body,  having  many  members,  performing  va- 
rious offices,  having  but  one  head,  it  is  clear  there  can  be  but 
one  Church. 

But  we  are  not  left  to  make  out  the  necessity  and  importance 
of  this  unity,  from  inference  alone.  Our  Saviour  prayed,  (John 
xvii.  20 — 23,)  that  "  all  his  disciples  might  be  one,  as  He  and 
the  Father  were  one."  And  he  gives  as  a  reason  for  desiring 
this  unity,  "  that  the  world  might  believe  that  the  Father  hath 
34* 


398  EVILS  OF  DISSENSION. 

sent  him."  Here  Christian  unity  is  made  indispensable  to 
the  success  of  the  gospel.  Hence,  a  want  of  this  unity  must 
be  one  of  the  greatest  hindrances  to  the  conversion  of  the 
world.  It  is  only,  therefore,  vi^hile  the  Church  raises  its  voice 
"  with  one  accord,"  while  it  "  continues  steadfastly  in  the 
Apostles'  doctrine  and  fellowship,  and  in  breaking  of  bread 
and  in  prayer,"  (Acts  ii.  42,)  that  we  have  a  right  to  expect 
that  the  word  of  God  will  grow  and  be  multiplied. 

The  evils  of  a  departure  from  this  unity,  are  most  serious 
and  alarming.  Many  of  these  must  be  apparent  to  the  most 
casual  observer.  But  some  of  them  are  not  so  apparent,  re- 
quiring a  careful  comparison  of  the  present  with  the  past  his- 
tory of  the  Church.  It  is  thus  we  learn  that  since  the  ortho- 
dox portion  of  the  Christian  Church,  those  who  believed  in 
the  divinity  of  our  Saviour  and  received  the  great  doctrines 
of  the  Gospel,  has  been  divided  into  sects  and  parties,  Chris- 
tianity itself  has  lost  ground  in  the  world,  at  least  so  far  as 
the  number  of  its  followers  is  concerned.  We  know  this 
opinion  will  sound  strange  to  some,  perhaps  be  questioned  by 
others — that  it  is  opposed  to  the  popular  opinion  of  the  day ; 
but  notwithstanding,  the  truth  of  history  compels  us  to  believe, 
that  there  are  not  as  many  nominal  and  professed  Christians 
in  the  world,  at  the  present  moment,  as  there  were  fourteen 
centuries  ago. 

At  the  first  assembling  of  the  disciples,  after  the  ascension, 
there  were  but  one  hundred  and  twenty.  (Acts  i.  15.)  Sub- 
sequently the  number  amounted  to  about  five  hundred.  (1 
Cor.  XV.)  About  three  thousand  souls  were  added  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  (Acts  ii.  41  ;)  among  which,  were  "  devout  men 
out  of  every  nation."  (Acts  ii.  5.)  The  countries  mentioned 
as  being  represented,  were  Egypt  and  Lybia,  in  Africa ;  Rome, 
and  other  places  in  Europe,  and  numerous  countries  of  Asia. 
To  these  countries  some  account  of  the  miraculous  descent 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  would  be  carried.     Within  a  short  period 


CHRISTIANITY   IN   THE   DAYS   OF   THE   APOSTLES.  399 

after  this,  a  greater  number  became  converts  ;  among  whom 
"  were  about  five  thousand  men."  (Acts  iv.  4.)  No  allow- 
ance is  made  for  others  than  males,  although  it  is  said, 
(Acts  ii.  4,)  that  "  The  Lord  added  to  the  Church  daily  such 
as  should  be  saved."  We  may  safely  estimate,  therefore,  that 
within  one  month  after  the  day  of  Pentecost,  there  were  not 
less  than  fifteen  thousand  converts  to  Christianity.  Not  long 
after,  the  great  body  of  the  Church  at  Jerusalem  was  driven 
away  by  persecution,  and  the  members  being  "  scattered 
abroad,  went  everywhere  preaching  the  word."  (Acts  viii. 
4.)  And  some  knowledge  of  the  Gospel  was  thus  carried 
to  all  places  where  either  Jews  or  Jewish  proselytes  were  to 
be  found. 

How  many  countries  were  converted  by  the  Apostles  and 
their  associates,  we  have  no  means  of  determining  ;  but  we 
are  sure,  that  the  knowledge  of  the  Gospel  was  carried,  du- 
ring the  life-time  of  the  Apostles,  to  most  of  the  principal 
places  in  the  then  known  world.  That  St.  Peter  had  labored 
successfully  in  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia  Minor,  Bi- 
thynia,  and  had  proceeded  as  far  as  Babylon,  is  evident  from 
his  epistles.  (1  Peter  i.  1,  13.)  St.  Paul  passed  from  coun- 
try to  country,  proceeding  from  Jerusalem  through  Illyricum, 
and  the  countries  round  about,  to  Rome,  preaching  the  Gospel. 
The  fullest  account  we  have  of  the  success  of  this  Apostle  is 
given  in  the  speech  of  Demetrius,  the  Ephesian  silversmith. 
"  Moreover  ye  see  and  hear,  that  not  alone  at  Ephesus,  but 
almost  throughout  all  Asia  [Minor,]  this  Paul  hath  persuaded 
and  turned  away  much  people,  saying  that  they  be  no  gods 
which  are  made  with  hands  ;  so  that  not  only  this  our  craft  is 
in  danger  of  being  set  at  nought,  but  also  that  the  temple  of 
the  great  goddess  Diana  should  be  despised."  (Acts  xix.  26, 
27.)  After  making  allowance  for  the  overstatements  of  pre- 
judice and  passion,  this  speech  furnishes  clear  evidence  that 
Christianity  had  made  great  progress.     Little  is  known  of  the 


400  CHRISTIANITY   IN  THE  SECOND   CENTURY. 

labors  of  the  other  Apostles,  but  we  are  assured  that  they 
wrought  "  mighty  signs  and  wonders  by  the  power  of  the  Spirit 
of  God."  Hence,  we  are  authorized  to  infer,  that  long  before 
the  death  of  the  Apostles,  the  number  of  believers  had  be- 
come very  great.  Indeed,  we  find  St.  James  appeahng  to  St. 
Paul  to  observe  some  of  the  customs  of  the  law,  at  Jerusalem, 
out  of  regard  to  the  feelings  and  opinions  of  the  "  many  thou- 
sands of  the  Jews  that  believed."     (Acts  xxi.  20.) 

If  we  come  down  subsequent  to  the  death  of  the  Apostles, 
we  find  evidence  to  strengthen  this  conclusion.  We  learn 
from  Pliny,  Governor  of  Bithynia,  A.  D.  110,*  that  Christ- 
ianity was  "  not  confined  to  cities  only,  but  had  spread  through 
the  neighboring  villages  and  country,"  including  "  great  num- 
bers of  all  ranks  and  ages,  and  of  both  sexes,"  so  that  "  the 
[heathen]  temples  had  been  almost  deserted."  Justin  Martyr, 
A.  D.  150,  writes,  "there  is  no  race  of  men,  whether  Barba- 
rian or  Greek,  or  by  whatever  name  they  may  be  designated, 
whether  they  wander  in  wagons,  [as  the  Scythians  and  Tar- 
tars,] or  dwell  in  tents,  [like  the  Arabians,]  amongst  whom 
prayers  and  thanksgivings  are  not  offered  to  the  Father  and 
Creator  of  all,  in  the  name  of  the  crucified  Jesus."!  Irena^us, 
about  A.  D.  175,  speaks  of  the  prevalence  of  the  Gospel  among 
the  Germans  and  Celts,  the  Egyptians,  Lybians,  and  Orien- 
tals.J  And  Tertullian,  A.  D.  198,  says,^  "  We  are  but  of 
yesterday,  yet  we  have  filled  your  empire,  your  cities,  your 
islands,  your  castles,  your  corporate  towns,  your  assemblies, 
your  very  camps,  your  tribes,  your  companies,  your  palaces, 
your  Senate,  [and]  your  forum.  Your  temples  alone  are  left 
to  you."  And  in  another  place  he  says,  "  We  constitute  al- 
most the  majority  in  every  town."  In  still  another  place  he 
tells  us, II  that  "  The  Panhians,  Medes,  Elamites,  [i.  e.  Per- 
sians,] the  inhabitants  of  Mesopotamia,   Armenia,   Phrygia, 

*  Ep.  X.  Ep.  97.  t  Dial.  Tryph.  p.  338.  ^  Adv.  Haer.  i.  3. 

$  Apol.  c.  37.  II  Adv   Jud.  c.  7. 


CHRISTIANITY  IN"  AFRICA. 

Cappadocia,  Pontus,  Egypt,  and  parts  beyond  Cyrene,  the 
Romans,  several  tribes  of  the  Getuli,  many  to  the  extremity 
of  Mauronum,  and  to  all  the  extremities  of  Spain ;  many 
nations  of  the  Gauls,  and  places  in  Britain,  inaccessible  to 
the  Roman  arms,  had  been  subdued  to  Christ  ;  that  the  Sa- 
maritans, Dacians,  Germans,  Scythians,  and  many  other  na- 
tions, provinces,  and  islands,  to  us  unknown,  are  subject  to  the 
dominion  of  Christ."  These  testimonies  are  sufficient  to 
prove,  that  the  Gospel  had  been  preached  to  a  considerable 
extent  in  all  of  the  then  known  portions  of  the  globe,  and  that 
in  most  countries  the  number  of  Christians  was  large  before 
the  year  two  hundred.  It  was  sometime,  however,  before  the 
internal  regulations  of  the  Church,  and  the  extent  of  the  sev- 
eral Dioceses,  were  firmly  established.  They  had  become  so, 
however,  before  the  middle  of  the  fifth  century,  and  we  can 
reckon  up  the  number  and  tell  the  names  of  most  of  the  Dio- 
ceses then  in  existence,  and  can  form  some  tolerable  estimate 
of  the  probable  number  of  Christians  then  living. 

We  begin  with  Africa ;  and  first,  that  portion  of  it  compo- 
sing the  six  Romish  provinces.  This  portion  of  country*  was 
about  two  thousand  three  hundred  and  sixty  miles  long,  and 
averaged  about  three  hundred  and  fifty  miles  wide,  contain- 
ing eight  hundred  and  twenty-six  thousand  square  miles  ;  and 
we  can  now  reckon  up  the  names  of  four  hundred  and  sixty- 
six  Dioceses,  existing  A.  D.  400,  in  this  territory. •[  The  whole 
number  of  Dioceses  was  probably  about  five  hundred,  covering 
over  one  thousand  six  hundred  and  fifty  miles  each.  These 
DiocesesJ  averaged  from  sixty  to  eighty  towns  and  villages, 
in  all  of  which  there  was  probably  one,  and  in  many  of  them 
there  are  known  to  have  been  several,  congregations  or  par- 
ishes.^    Now  when  we  recollect  that  Africa,  at  this  time,  was 

*Proc.  De  Vandal,  i,  c.  2.  fCoU.  Carth.  1. 

:f  Maurice,  Def.  Dioces.  Episc.  p.  103,  in  Bing^.  I.,  353. 

§  Bing.  Orig.  Eccl.  B.  ix.  c  2,  §  5. 


402  CHRISTIANITY  IN  EGYPT,  LYBIA,  PENTAPOLIS, 

one  of  the  most  populous  countries  on  the  globe,  and  that  by 
far  the  greater  portion  of  the  inhabitants  were  professedly 
Christians,  it  is  fair  to  presume,  that  the  parishes  were  numer- 
ous and  large.  Indeed,  we  know  that  there  were  above  five 
hundred  clergy  in  the  Church  at  Carthage  at  one  time.*  If 
that  country  was  populated  one  half  as  thick  as  England, 
Wales,  and  Scotland,  it  would  have  contained  over  eighty  mil- 
lions of  inhabitants.  And  as  a  majority  of  these  were  nomi- 
nally or  professedly  Christians,  it  is  fair  to  infer,  that  the 
Christians  did  not  number  less  than  fifty  millions. 

In  the  Provinces  of  Egypt,  Lybia,  and  Pentapolis,  also 
among  the  most  populous  countries  of  the  globe,  there  were 
about  one  hundred  Dioceses. f  The  Dioceses  of  Lybia  cov- 
ered, upon  an  average,  two  thousand  five  hundred  square 
miles,  and  those  of  Pentapolis  were  about  the  same  size.J 
Those  of  Egypt  averaged  but  about  one  thousand  miles  each. 
If  these  hundred  Dioceses  averaged  as  much  as  we  have  es- 
timated the  other  portion  of  Africa,  they  would  give  us  five 
millions  more  of  Christians  ;  or  fifty-five  millions  in  all. 

In  the  Patriarchate  of  Jerusalem,  including  Palestine  and 
Arabia  Petra,  there  were  forty-eight  Dioceses,^  in  which,  con- 
sidering the  populousness  of  the  country  at  that  time,  and  the 
predominance  of  Christianity  there,  we  may  safely  estimate 
five  millions  of  Christians  more.  In  the  Patriarchate  of  Anti- 
och,  there  were  one  hundred  and  sixty-four  Dioceses,  varying 
in  size.  In  the  Province  of  Cyprus,  there  were  fifteen  Dio- 
ceses, averaging  two  thousand  two  hundred  and  sixty-six 
square  miles  to  a  Diocese.  In  Lybia,  there  were  fifty-six 
Dioceses,  averaging  one  thousand  two  hundred  and  sixty 
square  miles. ||  In  the  Province  of  Euphratesia,  there  were 
thirteen  Dioceses.  The  largest  of  these,  Cyrus,  was  over 
forty  miles  square,  containing  one  thousand  six  hundred  miles, 


♦Victor,  De  Perse.  Vandal.  B.  iii.         t  Athan.  Apol.  2.   Soc.  Hist.  i.  6. 

tBinff.  ix.  •2,§G.  §Jb.  §7,8.  ||  lb.  §9,  10,  11. 


PALESTINE,  ANTIOCH,  CONSTANTINOPLE.  403 

and  in  the  time  of  Theodoret,  had  eight  hundred  parishes  * 
We  can  not  ascertain  with  certainty  what  was  the  population 
of  this  Diocese  ;  but  Theodoret  tells  us  that  it  contained  above 
sixty  thousand  juga  of  land,  or  over  sixty  thousand  farms  ; 
and  which,  allowing  one  family  to  a  farm,  would  give  above 
four  hundred  thousand  inhabitants  to  this  Diocese.     That  the 
population  was  abundant,  may  be  inferred  from  the  fact,  that 
the  heresies  of  Arius,  Marcion,  and  Enomius  prevailed  to  a 
great  extent  in  that  Diocese,  and  that  Theodoret,  during  his 
Episcopate,   converted  over  ten  thousand  Marcionites,    and 
several  thousand  of  the  other  sects,  to  the  orthodox  faith.f 
The  other  Dioceses  in  this  province  were  smaller  in  size,  but 
some  of  them,  as  Hierapolis  and  Samosata,  included  large 
cities. I     In  Phenice,  there  were  twenty-six  Dioceses,  inclu- 
ding the  cities  of  Tyre,  Sidon,  Damascus,  Ptolemais,  Emissa, 
Palmyra,  and  others  of  considerable  extent,  but  less  known. ^ 
In  the  province  of  Theodoris,  there  were  three  Dioceses,  con- 
taining about  one  thousand  square  miles  each.||     In  Osho- 
roena  and  Mesopotamia,  there  were  fifty-one  Dioceses,  ave- 
raging about  two  thousand  four  hundred  and  forty  square  miles 
each.     We  have,  therefore,  in  the  Patriarchate  of  Antioch, 
one  hundred  and  sixty-four  Dioceses,  averaging  over  one  thou- 
sand five  hundred  square  miles  to  a  Diocese  ;  giving  at  least 
thirty-three  millions  of  Christians  in  this  Patriarchate  alone. 
The  Patriarchate  of  Constantinople  had  about  six  hundred 
Dioceses,  some  small,  others  large.      Of  these,   about  four 
hundred  were  in  Asia,  and  two  hundred  in  Europe.     One  of 
the  largest  of  the  Asiatic  Dioceses,  was  Caesarea,  about  one 
hundred  miles  square,  covering  an  area  of  ten  thousand  miles. 
St.  Basil  was  Bishop  of  this  Diocese,  from  about  370  to  380, 
and  had  under  him  fifty  chor-episcopi,  a  kind  of  assistant 

*  Ep.  42,  47,  and  113.  fEp.  145. 

:j:  Jos.  De  Bell,  Ixii.  c.  27.     Aram.  Marc.  L.  14. 
§  Bin^.  B.  ix.  c.  2,  §  12.  ||  lb.  §  13. 


404  CHRISTIANITY  IN  EUROPE  AND  PERSIA. 

Bishop,  each  with  many  Presbyters  and  Deacons  under  them  * 
As  these  parishes  probably  averaged  as  large  as  those  of 
Antioch,  there  would  have  been  two  hundred  and  forty  thousand 
parishes,  and  one  hundred  and  twenty  millions  of  Christians. 

In  Italy,  as  then  constituted,  there  were  about  three  hundred 
Dioceses  ;  in  Spain,  seventy  Dioceses  ;  in  France,  one  hun- 
dred and  seventeen  Dioceses,  and  in  Ireland,  thirty-eight  Di- 
oceses.f  Some  of  these  Dioceses  were  small,  others  large  ; 
some  thinly  inhabited,  others  densely  populated.  Of  these, 
Rome,  with  its  three  millions  of  people,  constituted  a  single 
Diocese.  If  these  five  hundred  and  twenty-five  Dioceses 
averaged  one  hundred  parishes  to  a  Diocese,  and  five  hundred 
persons  each,  it  would  give  twenty-six  millions  of  Christians. 

To  these  must  be  added  a  large  number  of  Christians  in 
Persia,  in  India,  in  Ethiopia,  as  also  in  Britain,  perhaps  some 
in  the  north  of  Europe.  In  Persia  alone,  there  seems  to  have 
been  as  many  as  fifty  Dioceses.^  The  Bishops  of  twenty- 
three  of  these  Dioceses  suff'ered  martyrdom  about  the  same 
time,  A.  D.  330,  In  one  Diocese  alone,  two  hundred  and  fifty  of 
the  inferior  clergy  suftered  with  their  Bishop.  It  will  not  be 
an  over-estimate,  if  we  allow  one  hundred  Dioceses  in  all 
these  countries,  with  at  least  five  millions  of  Christians. 

If  now  we  bring  together  the  result  of  these  calculations, 
we  shall  have  two  hundred  and  twenty-five  millions  of  Christ- 
ians, in  the  year  450,  in  Bishopricks,  the  names  of  which 
have  been  preserved  to  this  day  ;  twenty-five  millions  more 
than  are  estimated  for  the  present  time.  Of  these,  about  one 
hundred  and  seventy-three  millions  were  in  Asia  and  Africa, 
where  now  there  are  not,  according  to  the  best  estimates,  over 
twenty  millions.  In  these  two  countries,  Christianity  has  lost 
over  one  hundred  and  fifty  millions  of  worshipers — sad  conse- 
quence of  a  departure  from  Christian  Unity. 

*  Greg.  Naz.  Carm.  De  Vita,  Basil.    Bas.  Ep.  181,  412. 
t  Bing.  B.  V.  vi.  ifBing.  ix.  2,  §  16,  17. 


APPENDIX. 


Consecration  of  Archbishop  Parker. 

About  fifty  years  after  the  death  of  Archbishop  Parker,  a  story  was  made 
up  by  some  of  the  Papists,  denying-  that  Parker  was  consecrated.  This 
story  became  the  subject  of  controversy,  and  is  thus  described  by  Rev. 
John  Lingard,  D.  D.,  the  Roman  Catholic  historian  of  England,  in  the 
following  no^e.  Hist.  Eng.,  vol.  VII.  p.  203,  Am.  Ed.,  p.  422,  Paris  Ed. 

"  It  may,  perhaps,  be  expected  that  I  should  notice  a  story  which  was 
once  the  subject  of  acrimonious  controversy  between  the  divines  of  the  two 
communions.  It  was  said  that  Ivitchin  and  Scorey,  with  Parker  and  the 
other  Bishops  elect,  met  in  a  tavern  called  the  Nag's  head,  in  Cheapside  ; 
that  Kitchin,  on  account  of  a  prohibition  from  Bonner,  refused  to  conse- 
crate them,  and  that  Scorey,  therefore,  ordering  them  to  kneel  down,  placed 
the  Bible  on  the  head  of  each,  and  told  him  to  rise  up  Bishop.  The  facts 
that  are  really  known,  are  the  following.  The  Queen,  from  the  beginning 
of  her  reign,  had  designed  Parker  for  the  Archbishopric.  After  a  long  re- 
sistance he  gave  his  consent ;  and  a  conge  d'ehre  was  issued  to  the  Dean 
and  Chapter,  July  18,  15.59.  He  was  chosen  August  1.  On  September  8, 
the  Queen  sent  her  mandate  to  Tunstall,  Bishop  of  Durham  ;  Bourne,  of 
Bath  and  Wells  ;  Pool,  of  Peterborough  ;  Ivitchin,  of  LlandafT;  Barlow,  the 
deprived  Bishop  of  Bath  under  Mary,  and  Scorey,  of  Chichester,  also  de- 
prived under  Mary,  to  confirm  and  consecrate  the  Archbishop  elect.  (Rym. 
XV.  541.)  Kitchin  had  conformed  ;  and  it  was  hoped  that  the  other  three, 
who  had  not  been  present  in  Parliament,  might  be  induced  to  imitate  his 
example.  All  three,  however,  refused  to  ofiiciate  ;  and  in  consequence  the 
oath  of  supremacy  was  tendered  to  them,  (Rym.  xv.  545  ;)  and  their  re- 
fusal to  take  it  was  followed  by  deprivation.  In  these  circumstances  no 
consecration  took  place  ;  but  three  months  later,  (December  6,)  the  Queen 
sent  a  second  mandate,  directed  to  Kitchin,  Barlow,  Scorey,  Coverdale,  the 
deprived  Bishop  oi  Exeter,  under  Mary,  John,  suffragan  of  Bedford,  John, 
suffragan  of  Thetford,  and  Bale,  Bishop  of  Ossory,  ordering  them,  or  any 
four  of  them,  to  confirm  and  consecrate  the  Archbishop  elect :  but  with  an 
additional  clause,  by  which  she,  of  her  supreme  royal  authority,  supplied 
whatever  deficiency  there  might  be  according  to  the  statutes  of  the  realm, 
or  the  laws  of  the  Church,  either  in  the  acts  done  by  them,  or  in  the  per- 
son, state,  or  faculty  of  any  of  them,  such  being  the  necessity  of  the  case, 
and  the  urgency  of  the  time.  (Rym.  xv.  549.)  Kitchin  again  appears 
to  have  declined  the  office.  But  Barlow,  Scorey,  Coverdale,  and  Hodgskins, 
suffragan  of  Bedford,  confirmed  the  election  on  the  9th ;  and  consecrated 
Parker  on  the  17th.  The  ceremony  was  performed,  though  with  a  little 
variation,  according  to  the  ordinal  of  Edward  VI.  Two  of  the  consecra- 
tors.  Barlow  and  Hodgskins,  had  been  ordained  Bishops  according  to  the 
Roman  pontifical,  the  other  two  according  to  the  reformed  ordinal.  (Wilk. 
Con.  iv.  198.)  Of  this  consecration  on  the  17th  of  December,  there  can 
be  no  doubt:  perhaps  in  the  interval  between  the  refusal  of  the  Catholic 
prelates,  and  the  performance  of  the  ceremony,  some  meeting  may  have 
taken  place  at  the  Nag's  head,  which  gave  rise  to  the  story." 

This  note  called   forth  an  attack  in   the   Birmingham  Magazine,  by  an 
anonymous  writer,   signing  himself  *'  T.  H."  to  which  Rev.  Dr.  Lingard 
made  the  following  reply : 
35 


406  APPENDIX. 

"Mr.  Editor, —  In  your  last  number,  a  correspondent,  under  the  signa- 
ture of  T.  H.,  has  called  on  me  to  show  why  I  have  asserted,  (Hist.  Eng. 
VII.  p.  293,)  that  Archbishop  Parker  was  consecrated  on  the  17th  of  De- 
cember, 1559.  Though  I  despair  of  satisfying  the  incredulity  of  one  who 
can  doubt  after  he  has  examined  the  documents  to  which  I  have  referred, 
yet  I  owe  it  to  myself  to  prove  to  your  readers  the  truth  of  my  statement, 
and  the  utter  futility  of  any  objection  which  can  be  brought  against  it. 

"  The  matter  in  dispute  is,  whether  Parker  received,  or  did  not  receive, 
consecration  on  the  17th  of  December ;  but  the  following  facts  are,  and 
must  be  admitted  on  both  sides  :  1st.  That  the  Queen  having  given  the 
royal  assent  to  the  election  of  Parker,  by  the  Dean  and  Chapter  of  Canter- 
bury, sent,  on  September  9,  a  mandate  to  six  prelates  to  confirm  and  con- 
secrate the  Archbishop  elect,  and  that  they  demurred,  excusing,  as  would 
appear  from  what  followed,  their  disobedience,  by  formal  exceptions  on 
points  of  law.  2d.  That  on  the  6th  of  December,  she  issued  a  second 
commission  to  seven  Bishops,  ordering  them,  or  any  four  of  them,  to  per- 
form that  office,  with  the  addition  of  a  sanatory  clause,  in  which  she  sup- 
phed,  by  her  supreme  authority,  all  legal  or  ecclesiastical  defects,  on  ac- 
count of  the  urgency  of  the  time,  and  the  necessity  of  the  thing;  'tem- 
poris  ratione  et  rernm  necessitate  id  prostulante  ;'  words  which  prove  how 
much  the  Queen  had  this  consecration  at  heart  ;  and  certainly  not  without 
reason,  for  at  that  time,  with  the  exception  of  Llandaff,  there  was  not  a 
diocese  provided  with  a  Bishop,  nor,  as  the  law  then  stood,  could  any  such 
provision  be  made  without  a  consecrated  Archbishop,  to  confirm  and  con- 
secrate the  Bishops  elect.  3d.  That  four  out  of  the  seven  Bishops  named 
in  the  commission,  (they  had  been  deprived  or  disgraced  under  Queen 
Mary,  but  had  now  come  forward  to  offer  their  services,  and  solicit  prefer- 
ment in  the  new  Church,)  having  obtained  a  favorable  opinion  from  six 
counsel  learned  in  the  law,  undertook  to  execute  the  commission,  and 
contirmed  Parker's  election  on  the  9th  of  December. 

"  Now,  these  facts  being  indisputable,  what,  I  ask,  should  prevent  the 
consecration  from  taking  place  1  The  Queen  required  it ;  Parker,  as  ap- 
pears from  his  subsequent  conduct,  had  no  objection  to  the  ceremony,  and 
the  commissioners  were  ready  to  perform  it,  or  rather  under  an  obligation 
to  do  so;  for  by  the  25th  of  Henry  VIII.,  revived  in  the  last  Parliament, 
they  were  compelled,  under  the  penalty  of  praemunire,  to  proceed  to  the 
consecration  within  tw^enty  days  after  the  date  of  the  commission.  Most 
certainly  all  these  preliminary  facts  lead  to  the  presumption  that  the  conse- 
cration did  actually  take  place  about  the  time  assigned  to  it,  the  17th  of 
December,  a  day  falling  within  the  limits  I  have  just  mentioned. 

"  In  the  next  place,  I  must  solicit  the  attention  of  your  readers  to  certain 
indisputable  facts,  subsequent  to  that  period.  These  are — 1st.  That  on 
the  ISth  (and  the  date  is  remarkable)  the  Queen  sent  to  Parker  no  fewer 
than  six  writs  addressed  to  him,  under  the  new  style  of  Matthew,  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  and  primate  and  metropolitan  of  all  England,  and 
directing  him  to  proceed  to  the  confirmation  and  consecration  of  six  Bishops 
elect,  for  six  different  Sees.  This  was  the  first  time  during  the  six  months 
which  had  elapsed  since  his  election,  that  any  such  writ  had  been  directed 
to  him.  What,  then,  could  have  happened,  just  before  the  ISth,  to  entitle 
him  to  this  new  style,  and  to  enable  him  to  confirm  and  consecrate  Bishops, 
which  he  could  not  do  before  ■?  The  obvious  answer  is,  that  he  himself 
had  been  consecrated  on  the  17th.  2d.  That  on  the  21st,  he  consecrated 
four  new  Bishops,  on  the  21st  of  January  five  others,  two  more  on  the  2d, 
and  two  on  the  24th  of  March.     Can  we  suppose  that  so  much  importance 


APPENDIX.  407 

would  be  attached  to  consecration  given  by  him,  if  lie  had  received  no  con- 
secration himself  1  or,  that  the  new  Church  would  have  been  left  so  long 
without  Bishops  at  all,  if  it  had  not  been  thought  necessary  that  he,  who 
was  by  law  to  consecrate  the  others,  should  previously  receive  that  rite  1 
3d.  That  afterward,  at  the  same  time  with  the  new  prelates,  he  obtained 
the  restoration  of  his  temporalities,  a  restoration  which  was  never  made 
till  after  consecration.  4th.  That  he  not  only  presided  at  the  convocation, 
but  sat  in  successive  Parliaments,  which  privilege  was  never  allowed  to 
any  but  consecrated  Bishops.  In  my  judgment,  the  comparison  of  these 
facts,  with  those  that  preceded  the  17th  of  December,  forms  so  strong  a 
case,  that  I  should  not  hesitate  to  pronounce  in  favor  of  the  consecration, 
even  if  all  direct  and  positive  evidence  respecting  it  had  perished. 

"  But  there  exists  such  evidence  in  abundance.  That  Parker  was  con- 
secrated on  the  17th  of  December,  is  asserted,  1st,  by  Camden,  (i.  49,) 
2d,  by  Godwin,  (De  Praes.  p.  219,)  3d,  by  the  Archbishop  himself  in  his 
work,  (De  Antiquitate  Brittannicae  Ecclesise,)  published  in  1572,  three 
years  before  his  death,  or,  if  that  book  be  denied  to  be  his,  in  his  diary,  in 
which  occurs  the  following  entry  in  his  own  hand  :  '  17th  Dec.  Ann.  1559, 
consecratus  sum  in  Archepiscopum  Cantuariensem.  Hue!  Hue!  Domine 
Deus,  in  quae  tempora  servasti  me !'  (Strype's  Parker,  App.  15.)  And, 
4th,  by  the  Arch-episcopal  Register,  a  record  which  details  the  whole  pro- 
ceeding, with  the  names  of  the  Bishops,  of  the  Chaplains,  and  of  the 
official  witnesses.  In  truth,  it  descends  to  so  many  minute  particulars,  that 
I  think,  Mr.  Editor,  it  must  be  the  model  after  which  are  composed  the 
descriptions  of  consecrations,  ordinations,  and  dedications,  which  we  have 
the  pleasure  of  perusing  in  your  pages.  In  one  respect  only  must  it  yield 
the  superiority  to  them.     It  names  not  either  the  organist  or  the  singers. 

"  Now  to  this  mass  of  evidence,  direct  and  indirect,  what  does  j'^our  cor- 
respondent oppose  1  That  Harding  and  Stapleton,  and  the  more  ancient 
Catholic  controvertists,  denied  that  Parker  was  a  Bishop  1  That  is,  indeed, 
true  ;  but  I  always  understood  that  their  objections  (which  is  certainly  the 
case  with  respect  to  the  two  passages  quoted  in  your  last  number)  referred 
to  the  validity,  not  to  the  fart  of  his  consecration  ;  and  if  Dr.  Milner  has 
chanced  to  assert  to  the  contrary,  T  fear  that  he  wrote  it  hastily,  and  with- 
out consideration.  I  am  not  aware  of  any  open  denial  of  the  fact,  till 
about  fifty  years  afterward,  when  the  tale  of  the  foolery  supposed  to  have 
been  played  at  the  Nag's  Head,  was  first  published.  In  refutation  of  that 
story,  Protestant  writers  ajjpealed  to  the  Register ;  their  opponents  dis- 
puted its  authority ;  and  the  consequence  was,  that  in  1614,  Archbishop 
Abbot  invited  Colleton,  the  Archpriest,  with  two  or  three  other  Catholic 
missionaries,  to  Lambeth,  and  submitted  the  Register  to  their  inspection, 
in  presence  of  six  of  his  own  Episcopal  colleagues.  The  details  may  be 
seen  in  Dodd,  ii.  277,  or  in  Godwin,  p.  219. 

"  Your  correspondent  assures  us  that  the  Register  contains  '  so  many  in- 
accuracies and  points  at  variance  with  the  history  of  the  times,  as  mani- 
festly prove. a  forgery.'  Were  it  .so,  there  still  remains  sufficient  evidence 
of  the  fact.  But  what  induces  T.  H.  to  make  this  assertion  1  Has  he 
examined  into  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case  1  Or  does  he  only  take 
for  granted  the  validity  of  the  several  objections  which  Dodd,  without  ex- 
pressing any  opinon  of  his  own,  has  collected  from  different  controvertists  1 
However  that  may  be,  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying,  that  all  those  objec- 
tions are  founded  on  misconception  or  ignorance  ;  that  the  Register  agrees 
in  every  particular  with  what  we  know  of  the  history  of  the  times ;  and 
that  there  exists  not  the  semblance  of  a  reason  for  pronoimcing  it  a  forgery." 


408  APPENDIX. 

Epistles  of  Ignatius. 

Among  the  authorities  quoted  in  this  volume,  is  Ignatius,  Bishop  of  An- 
tioch.  He  is  important,  both  for  the  early  date  and  fullness  of  his  wri- 
tings ;  and  it  has  been  found  the  easiest  waj'  to  dispose  of  him  is,  to  deny 
the  authenticity  and  genuineness  of  his  epistles.  It  is  agreed,  that  Igna- 
tius was  Bishop  of  Antioch,  a  distinguished  man  and  Christian,  sentenced 
to  death  by  Trajan,  and  was  sent  to  Rome  to  die,  A.  D.  107,  or  116;  on 
his  way,  he  wrote  several  epistles  to  several  different  Churches.  It  is  also 
agreed,  that  we  have  two  copies  of  seven  epistles  purporting  to  have  been 
written  by  Ignatius — that  the  longer  copy  teaches  Arianism,  the  shorter, 
the  Divinity  of  Christ — that  Eusebius  had,  when  he  wrote,  A.  D.  305,  the 
same  number  of  epistles,  having  the  same  directions  as  those  we  possess. 

Now  Eusebius's  copy  taught  doctrines  he  approved.  If,  then,  we  can 
determine  his  sentiments  in  regard  to  the  Trinity,  we  can  determine  which 
his  copy  was.  This  we  may  learn  by  reference  to  his  works ;  for  in  his 
history  he  describes  those  as  heretics  who  denied  the  divinity  of  Christ. 
(Hist.  i.  2 ;  iii.  27,  37.)  The  conclusion  is,  therefore,  irresistible,  that  the 
copy  he  possessed,  A.  D.  325,  taught  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  Igna- 
tius' is  also  quoted  by  Athanasius,  A.  D.  330,  by  Jerome,  A.  D.  370,  in 
Chrysostom,  398,  (Serm.  de  uno.  legis.,)  Theodoret,  423,  (Dial.  Prim.,) 
without  intimating  a  want  of  orthodoxy.  It  is  true,  then,  that  Ignatius 
wrote  seven  epistles  to  seven  Churches — that  they  taught  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity — that  the  shorter  copy  is  the  same  as  that  of  Eusebius,  Athana- 
sius, Jerome,  and  other  orthodox  men  of  that  age,  in  this  respect. 

But  this  conclusion  has  been  assailed  with  great  violence.  The  oppo- 
nents are  of  two  classes;  (1,)  the  Arian  and  Socinian,  who  finds  his  no- 
tions of  the  Trinity  contradicted  by  that  copy  which  has  by  far  the  greatest 
claim  to  authenticity  ;  and  (2)  the  anti-Episcopalian,  who  finds  his  views 
of  the  existence  anil  authority  of  Bishops  in  that  primitive  age,  controvert- 
ed by  them.  Yet  there  are  many  non-Episcopalians  who  speak  differ- 
ently. MosHEiM  says  :  "  The  seven  shorter  epistles  are,  by  most  writers, 
accounted  genuine.  .  .  .  To  this  opinion,  I  cheerfully  accede."  Dr. 
MuRDocK  says  :  "  Moderate  men,  of  various  sects,  especially  Lutherans, 
are  disposed  to  admit  the  genuineness  of  the  epistles  in  their  shorter  form, 
but  to  regard  them  as  interpolated  and  altered."  This  is  the  opinion  of 
the  leading  German  historians  ;  as  Neander,  (Allgm.  Gesch.  Christ.  Rel. 
I.,  B.  TIL,  Abth.  1107,)  and  J.  E.  C.  Schmidt,  (Handb.  Christ!  Kirch.  I., 
Theil.  §§  47,  119.)  L  C.  1.  Giesler  (Text-Book,  Ecc.  Hist.  Div.  I.  §  33) 
places  them  among  the  genuine  writings.  The  prevailing  opinion  among 
sound  scholars  now  is,  that  the  seven  shorter  epistles  of  Ignatius  are  gemiine^ 
hut  interpolated.  But  if  these  epistles  are  interpolated ,  can  we  quote  them 
as  authority  1  Certainly  not,  until  we  have  ascertained  the  true  text.  Nor 
is  this  a  difficult  task,  as  has  been  shown  by  Schmidt,  (Christ.  Kirch.  I., 
§  47.  Versuch  uber  gedop.  Recens.  Briefe  Tgn.  in  Henckes  Mag.  Relig. 
Bd.  III.  S.  91.)  Thus,  if  we  compare  the  two  copies,  and  reject  from  each, 
things  not  contained  in  the  other,  what  remains  will  be  genuine.  That  is, 
where  they  agree  in  phraseology,  there  is  no  reason  to  suspect  either  has 
been  altered,  and  this  may  be  set  down  as  the  certain  text.  Where  the 
longer  merely  expands  the  idea  of  the  shorter,  the  text  of  the  shorter  is 
the  highly  probable  text.  Where  the  only  difference  is,  that  the  longer 
changes  the  language  of  the  shorter,  teaching  another  doctrine,  the  text  of 
tlie  shorter  is  the  probable  text.  Finally,  when  either  contains  passages  not 
in  the  other,  that  must  be  regarded  as  probably  spurious.  In  this  volume, 
Ignatius  is  never  quoted  as  authority,  except  from  the  certain  text. 


Date  Due 

""^^^^^ 

1 

^   ^&s^| 

m^m 

'^Mmp^^0lB.l 

-mmmmm. 

I 

■^Bwwuii^^^gligjgiglll^ 

f 

i 


mm- 


Princeton  Theological  Semmary-Spcer  Library 


1    1012  01021   6929 


*Sj 


